Revisión comparativa del vínculo entre políticas educativas y educación superior en el contexto de la Agenda 2030 Los casos de México y Uruguay Autores/as
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developed within the framework of two institutional research projects (PAPIIT-UNAM IN301121/SEM_02_008_2019), this article aims to analytically characterize certain aspects of the current national policies for higher education in Mexico and Uruguay, within the context of the international educational policy framework defined by UNESCO's Agenda 2030. This article examines two cases from the Latin American region, chosen for their shared sociohistorical contexts related to the development of national and international educational policy agendas for the referenced educational level, from the last quarter of the 20th century to the present day. Through a comparative methodological approach and the use of desk research strategies (bibliohemerographic review, documentary analysis, and empirical analysis of recent statistics), this document provides significant insights into the similarities and differences that distinguish the higher education subsystems of the study cases, all in relation to the achievements and challenges arising from the fulfillment of SDG 4.3.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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 it