MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095904298

The World Bank

2002· article· en· W7095904298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPopulationRural areaQuality (philosophy)Private sectorEliteQuarter (Canadian coin)Educational attainmentPrivate education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Using a new census of private educational institutions in Pakistan together with the population census, we present evidence that private schooling, particularly at the primary level is indeed a large and increasingly important factor in education in Pakistan both in absolute terms and relative to public schooling. While the rural-urban gap still remains, the growth trends showed a marked improvement in rural areas. Contrary to expectations, private schools are not an urban elite phenomenon. Not only are they prevalent in rural areas but also are affordable to middle and even low income groups. Private schools have lower student-teacher ratios than public schools and while teachers were largely untrained and less experienced, their education level matched those in public schools. Fees respond in predictable ways to measured school inputs, suggesting that parents can infer quality variation between schools. Private schools are mainly coeducational, have a high percentage of girls ’ enrollment and a majority of the teachers are females. Looking at just the rural areas at the patwar circle level, we find that those areas that have a greater supply of educated women are able to respond very effectively to the growing demand for education by formation of

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1950.119

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare→French-language works237,207→