MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W654602516 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-533-5

Comparative analysis of higher education systems : issues, challenges and dilemmas

2014· book· en· W654602516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Kariwo, Tatiana Gounko, Musembi Nungu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a well crafted, timely book that comes at a time when so much is happening in higher education contexts across the world. Clearly, it is in response to these global (and selectively local) trends that Kariwo, Gounko and Nungu bring together an impressive lineup of both established and emerging scholars who achieve a comprehensive and critically constructed perspective on tertiary education systems. Collectively, the chapters in this work shall expand the epistemic boundaries of the area and its affiliated disciplines, and the book as a whole will greatly benefit interested scholars, students, education policy makers and the public at large. - Ali A. Abdi, Professor, University of Alberta This book is a valuable contribution to knowledge on higher education and provides an international perspective on issues, challenges and dilemmas resulting from the rapid expansion of higher education. The volume is an excellent text that integrates theoretical and analytical studies as well as empirical regional studies. The book gives some insights on how different countries and regions have been responding to massification and accessing of higher education. It will appeal to researchers, graduate students and faculty in Higher or Post-Secondary Education as well as International and Comparative Education. - Edward Shizha, Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University (Brantford Campus)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207