MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113905161 · doi:10.1108/978-1-62396-107-7

Why Public Schools?

2012· book· en· W7113905161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxpayerOrder (exchange)Public policyCompetition (biology)Public educationValue (mathematics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the purpose of public education? What is the value of taxpayer supported public schools? Who is invited to answer these questions? Except among policymakers, few publicly answer or debate these questions. Instead, the neoliberal forces of competition and deregulation seem to be driving education decision-making. The formal education system is seen as a tool for personal and national economic growth. Much of the education policy debate is centered on how to attain academic success as measured by standardized high stakes tests and evaluations. But, how to educate children and youth is a second order question. The first question must be ‘what is the purpose of schooling, and is it limited to the presumed answer that it is to prepare workers so our nations can sustain economic superiority?’ Students, parents, teachers, business people, artists, retirees, First Nations people, military veterans, and religious professionals are not typically invited to answer these questions – despite their stake in educational outcomes. Twenty-four such people, including professional educational policy makers and scholars, offer their thoughts in these essays from the US and Canada. The intended audience for this volume includes all who are concerned with the future of public schools in both nations.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.008

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207