MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903275289 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v57i4.55529

School Resources and the Academic Achievement of Canadian Students

2012· article· en· W6903275289 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic achievementExcellenceAffect (linguistics)Reading (process)Educational research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study estimates the impact of schools’ physical resources and teachers’ academic press on students’ academic achievement in mathematics and reading when a number of important student variables are controlled. Academic press is defined as teachers' emphasis on academic excellence and upholding academic standards (McDill, Natriello, & Pallas, 1986). It is often argued that both school and teacher resources affect the educational achievement of students. But, the research literature has been inconsistent, which may be due to methodological issues. For this reason, this study attempts to correct two of the most important issues by using Canadian national data and multi-level modeling. The results reveal that, in Canada, at least, the physical resources and academic press evaluated by school principals do not significantly affect students’ achievement in mathematics and reading. Cette étude évalue l’impact des ressources physiques des écoles et la rigueur académique des enseignants sur le rendement académique des élèves en mathématiques et en lecture lorsqu’on contrôle un certain nombre de variables importants chez les élèves. On définit la rigueur académique comme l’importance que les enseignants accordent à l’excellence académique et le maintien de normes académiques (McDill, Natriello, & Pallas, 1986). On soutient souvent que tant les ressources de l’école que celles des enseignants jouent un rôle dans le rendement académique des élèves. Les publications de recherche, par contre, sont contradictoires, peut-être en raison de problèmes méthodologiques. Cette étude tente donc de rectifier deux des problèmes les plus importants en employant des données nationales canadiennes et le modelage multiniveau. Les résultats indiquent qu’au Canada du moins, les ressources physiques et la rigueur académique telles qu’évaluées par les directeurs d’école n’affectent pas de façon significative le rendement des élèves en mathématiques et en lecture.

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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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