MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401148389 · doi:10.1177/00207152241266791

Participation in shadow education and academic performance: A comparison of upper secondary school students in Ireland and Germany

2024· article· en· W4401148389 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Societal Challenges
KeywordsShadow (psychology)Context (archaeology)Longitudinal studyAcademic achievementSecondary educationPolitical scienceMathematics educationPsychologyDemographic economicsEconomicsGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses two longitudinal cohort studies (Growing Up in Ireland and the National Educational Panel Study) to examine how shadow education relates to academic performance in Ireland and Germany. Patterns of take-up of, and outcomes from, shadow education are found to reflect the particular country context—aimed at maintaining performance to avoid grade retention in Germany and preparing for a high-stakes upper secondary exam in Ireland. Participation enhances academic performance but only for students with lower levels of prior achievement. However, the relationship is not much stronger than with engagement in structured out-of-school activities. Thus, shadow education appears to be one of a number of strategies used by more privileged families to secure educational advantage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.493
Teacher spread0.435 · 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