International Comparative Review: Accountability Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Accountability policy is highly contested. It has the potential to raise the performance of education systems but there is widespread concern that some accountability structures have a malignant effect. Jurisdictions around the world are attempting to balance this tension in different ways.</p> <p>By cataloguing the workings of fourteen accountability systems; exploring how these systems interact with their contrasting contexts; and by synthesising the evidence on these systems’ effects, this study set out to provide evidence to inform a more constructive debate.</p> <p>It was guided by six main research questions:</p> <p>RQ1. What is the purpose of accountability?</p> <p>RQ2. What is the structure of accountability?</p> <p>RQ3: How is accountability policy made and introduced?</p> <p>RQ4: How is accountability policy evaluated?</p> <p>RQ5: How does context shape accountability policy and reform?</p> <p>RQ6: What is the evidence about the effects of the accountability system?</p> <p>It focused on fourteen jurisdictions: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Ontario, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Estonia, Finland, Poland, The Netherlands and France.</p> <p>The study concludes by setting out seven main approaches to accountability. Jurisdictions combine elements of these different approaches but tend to lean more heavily on some approaches than others.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".