MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133776857 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18875221

Methodological Evaluation of Secondary School Systems in Uganda: Adoption Rates via Difference-in-Differences Analysis

2008· article· en· W7133776857 on OpenAlexaff
Otombe Namusoke, Kabaree Okello, Ssizyina Kabagiya

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSecondary educationEstimationCurriculumControl (management)Statistical analysisMeasure (data warehouse)School systemPolicy analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary school systems in Uganda are evolving, influenced by national policies and international development initiatives. There is a need to evaluate how these systems have adapted to new educational standards. The study employs a DiD approach to measure the impact of policy interventions on secondary school systems. It uses pre- and post-intervention data from randomly selected Ugandan schools as well as a comparison group that did not receive the intervention, with statistical models accounting for potential confounding variables such as socio-economic status. Initial analysis suggests an adoption rate increase by approximately 20% in treated schools compared to the control group, though this trend varied geographically and among different school types. The DiD model effectively captures the effect of policy changes on secondary school systems, providing insights into factors that influence curriculum adaptation. Future research could explore long-term impacts and broader contextual factors affecting adoption rates across Ugandan schools. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.087 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207