MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390270354 · doi:10.1177/00207152231219930

A systematic review of empirical literature on the segregation of educational institutions and its consequences in Finland

2023· review· en· W4390270354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katri Kleemola, Heidi Hyytinen, Tarja Tuononen, Auli Toom

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsEquity (law)Educational researchPolitical scienceTransition (genetics)SociologySystematic reviewRegional scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Finland has been considered a model for educational equity, the last decade has brought up concerns about educational segregation. This systematic literature review captures an overview of research on factors contributing to educational segregation and its consequences in Finland. A literature search of studies investigating various aspects of segregation in Finland and published both in English and Finnish was conducted, and altogether 40 scientific articles were analyzed. The findings show that segregation in Finland is regional or associated with the transitions that allow major choices. Neighborhood segregation, emphasized classes, transition to upper secondary education, and transition to higher education were identified as sources of segregation. Evidence on the consequences of the segregation in Finland is still scarce. Further research exploring the reasons, intertwining, and consequences of these phenomena as well as preventing them would be necessary.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207