Puede menos ser más? Discusiones en torno a la desigualdad de la jornada escolar en educacion preescolar, basica y media en Colombia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions on the length of the school day in Latin American countries have been constant and conflictive, particularly in recent decades, following the progress in coverage that most of these countries have made. As we shall see, there is no agreement on the correlation: longer school day - better academic results, or at least this is not considered to be the only determining factor. However, other dimensions of the social system are analyzed in which there is a positive impact of extending the school day, especially those related to a better use of children's free time, avoiding their involvement in gangs and facilitating the working lives of their mothers, fathers and caregivers. We insist on the lack of commitment, especially in the allocation of resources by the Colombian State to advance in the definitive establishment of the single school day in the country's public schools and how this results in unequal conditions between official and private educational institutions, which, in spite of this, are evaluated and classified on the basis of a supposed meritocratic model: through standardized tests, which in turn are decisive when it comes to accessing higher education, either because they are the first filter in public universities or because they are a prerequisite for accessing scholarships or financing credits; thus a perverse system is configured that is doubly exclusive and inequitable, which, as observed towards the end of the essay, was further deepened as a result of the social isolation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".