Higher education and the effectiveness of public policy funding mechanisms in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research analyzes the effectiveness of public policy funding mechanisms for higher education in Canada in the period from 2003 to 2012, assuming a gap to be explored concerning the proposition of new public policies that contribute to financing higher education worldwide. When it comes to the methodological procedures, this study was designed as exploratory and quantitative. A group of public policies were statistically analyzed, using as a reference the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which was in turn based on the investments made and the number of students attended in the period. The results showed that Canada has proven to be a country of solid and well-defined public policies, which had an impact on its good performance, with an emphasis on: the CESG policy, which presents the proactive way to ensure access to, and presence of, young people in higher education; CSGP/CSLP, which was statistically significant in relation to the percentage of students attended; and OSAP / Reaching Higher policy, which was more sensitive to the needs of the context in which it is inserted (Ontario province).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".