MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W615571797 · doi:10.1108/s1479-3679(2013)22

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education

2013· book· en· W615571797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janice Aurini, Scott Davies, Julian Dierkes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researching supplementary education: Plans, realities, and lessons from fieldwork in china. The insecurity industry: Supplementary education in Japan. Supplementary education in turkey: Recent developments and future prospects. Private tutoring in vietnam: A review of current issues and its major correlates. Supplementary education in brazil: Diversity and paradoxes. Supplementary education in a changing organizational field: The canadian case. But did it help you get to university? A qualitative study of supplementary education in western australia. Supplementary education in the United States: Policy context, characteristics, and challenges. Supplementary education in germany: History and present developments. Making markets: Policy construction of supplementary education in the united states and korea. Family capital: A determinant of supplementary education in 17 nations. Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education. International Perspectives on Education and Society. Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education. Copyright page. List of Contributors. Foreword. Out of the shadows? An introduction to worldwide supplementary education. About the Authors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations76
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207