Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of the Journal of Educational Thought explores the complex relationships which exist among the teacher, the students, the parents, the school, and the community, not to mention the subject matter or "what is to be learned."To a lesser degree it explores reflexive relationships , namely, those between an educationally important category and itself.Thus the self-reflection of a teacher or of a student or of a parent with respect to educational concerns would be a form of reflexive relationship.In our day the relationship between the school a nd the w ider community has been the subject of public concern and legislation.Governments want to know how schools are doing, relative to one another.Consequently notions like "accounta bility" and "standardized testing" across large school jurisdictions have been linked in the public eye .Such concerns are by no means confined to North America .European and Asi a n school systems have been equally concerned.To take one European example , Sweden , which brought in a completely new school system in 1968 , has been following the progress of tha t new system for more than 30 yea rs employing standardized testing across an entire na tional popul a tion and with a view to educational a ccountability.Among other things, in the Swedish case, the responsibili ty for nationa l education w as taken from the church a uthorities, on the grounds of grea ter public accountability, and placed in the hands of th e State , a first ste p in the disestablishment of the Swedish Lutheran Church.However, whateve r the merits of a sys tem of school accountability, there are good a rguments bot h fo r a nd against th e view that sta ndardized testing of all students is the wa y to procee d.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".