Clarifying the Present State of and Trends in Comparative Education from an Analysis of Journal Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to explicate the present state of and developments within the field of Comparative Education, by means of an analysis of articles published in Canadian and International Education and the Comparative Education Review, two eminent journals in the field. The following aspects of articles published in the two journals, since their inception till the end of 2006, were analyzed: levels of analysis of articles number of units covered by articles geographical areas which articles deal with modes of education articles deal with and themes/topics focused on. From the analysis, two features of the field became visible. On the one hand a striking consistency, on the other hand potential for a considerable broadening of levels of analysis, of geographical areas, and of modes of education. Theoreticians in the field make reasoned cases for such broadening, and articles analyzed revealed that incipient moves towards them are taking place. However, much scope for the expansion of the field along these lines exists. Some of these are pointed out. Cette recherche analyse plusieurs articles de deux revues éminentes, l’Education canadienne et Internationale et la revue Comparative Education Review dont le but sera d’expliquer l’état présent ainsi que l’évolution des recherches en Éducation Comparée. Les articles ont été choisis, depuis la création des revues jusqu’à la fin de 2006, sur la base des caractéristiques suivantes : Niveau d’analyse de l’article; Quantité d’éléments couverts par article; Zones géographiques visées par les articles ; Méthodologies éducatives visées par l’article; Thèmes/sujets analysés. L’analyse présente deux caractéristiques principales. D’un côté, il existe une consistance frappante, et de l’autre, un grand potentiel pour diversifier d’avantage les différents niveaux d’analyse, les zones géographiques, ainsi que les méthodologies éducatives visées. Les spécialistes du domaine acceptent cette diversification. Plusieurs articles analysés démontrent qu’un mouvement récent de diversification est en train de se développer. Les objectifs de développement doivent cependant être mieux définis. Quelques possibilités sont indiquées dans cet article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.091 | 0.092 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".