MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392958509 · doi:10.1080/03057925.2024.2328043

Concepts of education – a comparison between school policies of a tracking and a non-tracking school system

2024· article· en· W4392958509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanja Sturm

Bibliographic record

VenueCompare A Journal of Comparative and International Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)Tracking systemMathematics educationComputer sciencePolitical sciencePedagogyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceKalman filter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of different forms of tracking reveal that they correlate with differences of pupils’ SES and reproduce inequalities. Against this background, this paper examines the concepts of education and the ‘virtual social identities’ – or visions what the individual pupil should be – in school policy.. This is done by analysing and comparing extracts from school acts and additional documents from the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, where all pupils are segregated into vocational and academic tracks, and from the Canadian province of British Columbia, where there is no tracking during compulsory schooling. The reconstruction of these concepts is anchored in Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge. This comparative examination reveals different concepts of education and pupils: naturally given abilities that can hardly be influenced by pedagogy and an interactive development of ability through education. These understandings go along with different expectations of teachers’ actions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompare A Journal of Comparative and International EducationSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207