MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The PISA Pendulum

2023· book-chapter· en· W4387871989 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePublic administrationPoliticsNarrativeGlobal governanceAdministration (probate law)Corporate governanceEconomic growthEconomicsManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the initial administration of the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), governments have increasingly turned their attention to the policy implications stemming from this global benchmark measure. Educational jurisdictions such as Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Canada, and more recently Singapore, at various points in time, have been internationally lauded for their high achievement and touted as global reference societies by policymakers wishing to emulate their relative success. Yet questions and concerns remain regarding the undue influence and policy recommendations promoted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development. This chapter explicates some of the dominant political narratives as well as sources of contestation attributed to PISA that have shaped global, transnational, and national education governance agendas. Overall, the chapter provides a critical analysis of the policy influence of PISA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it