MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969528253 · doi:10.5539/jel.v14n5p57

The Impact of Socioeconomic Disadvantages on Academic Achievement During COVID-19 School Disruptions

2025· article· en· W6969528253 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedSocioeconomic statusAcademic achievementPsychological interventionScale (ratio)At-risk studentsNarrativeHigher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted education worldwide, magnifying existing socioeconomic disadvantages. This narrative review utilized the SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles to examine 20 articles from the past six years to explore the impacts of the shift to online learning, especially for children from lower-income households. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds faced significant challenges, leading to widening academic gaps. Key factors included limited access to technology and reliable internet, inadequate parental support due to work commitments or limited education, and emotional stress from social isolation, financial instability, and health concerns. While wealthier families could afford private tutors or extra resources, lower-income students struggled to maintain educational continuity. Additionally, parents with higher levels of education were better equipped to support their children’s learning. The digital divide left many students unable to fully participate in virtual classes or complete assignments, resulting in long-term learning losses. Food insecurity and unstable housing further hindered their focus on education. Addressing these disparities requires systemic interventions such as increased access to technology, targeted academic recovery programs, and stronger school-community partnerships. Without such measures, the educational inequities deepened by COVID-19 may persist for generations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.460 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207