MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412835913 · doi:10.61227/arji.v7i3.519

Exploring Trends in Education Program Evaluation Models in High Schools: Bibliometric Analysis

2025· article· en· W4412835913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariano Dos Santos, Ahmad Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueAction Research Journal Indonesia (ARJI) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsData scienceMathematics educationComputer scienceLibrary sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the program evaluation model applied in high school using a bibliometric approach integrated with interpretive analysis. The main problem identified was the importance of understanding the various evaluation models that are often applied in education and their influence on improving the quality of the program. The method used in this study is a bibliometric analysis by selecting 120 articles published between 1985 and 2024 from the Scopus database related to the evaluation of educational programs in secondary schools. Data was collected through a search for articles with relevant keywords, and an analysis was conducted to find thematic trends and collaborations between authors in this field. Data were analyzed using the prism method and the R Studio application with the Bibliometrix::biblioshiny() package to explore thematic trends, author collaboration networks, and conceptual structures. The results show that evaluation models, such as the Outcome-Mediation Cascade (OMC), TADIPHE, and EP_PISTdu, are increasingly relevant in complex educational contexts. The study also found the importance of gender elements in program evaluation, with a focus on equality between women and men. In addition, international collaborations between authors from different countries, such as the United States and Canada, are instrumental in enriching the quality of program evaluation research. This study suggests that the development of more innovative and relevant evaluation models should be carried out to increase the effectiveness of educational program evaluations in the future.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.2270.354
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.482
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.085 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAction Research Journal Indonesia (ARJI)Same topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207