ALL - Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey, Switzerland - 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Switzerland has participated in the IALS project (International Adult Literacy Survey) in 1994 (German and French-speaking Switzerland) and 1998 (Italian-speaking Switzerland). This study of adults' ability to cope with everyday cognitive tasks has contributed greatly to the fact that the phenomenon of illiteracy began to gain wider attention, i.e. that many people have only partially acquired or then lost the basic skills that compulsory schooling is supposed to provide. The ALL project is a follow-up to IALS, again under the authority of the OECD. The declared aim was to determine the human capital available in the participating countries by measuring certain basic skills in a sample of adults. A pilot study carried out in 2001 under the name ILSS (International Life Skills Survey) has made it possible to test the procedures and eliminate some less suitable parts of the tests. In Switzerland, the ALL survey covered around 5,500 persons, of whom around 2,000 were in German-speaking Switzerland and another 2,000 in western Switzerland, as well as 1,500 in the Italian-speaking part of the country. The data were collected in individual interviews with the participating persons at home. The interviews included tests on literacy and numeracy and, in German and French-speaking Switzerland, problem-solving skills. In addition, data on socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, their positioning in the social environment or on topics such as attitudes and behaviour regarding further training or the use of modern information and communication technologies were also collected. The cantons of Zurich and Geneva provided larger samples than the other cantons (around 800 each), as they had decided to tackle certain issues in greater depth. This is also the reason why German-speaking Switzerland and Suisse romande have a larger number of participants than Italian-speaking Switzerland. The data collection in the field was carried out in 2003. The international comparative report was compiled by Statistics Canada and the US National Center for Education Statistics and was published in 2005; the Swiss national report has been available since autumn 2006.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".