MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W810285408 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v39i2.9156

Clarifying the Present State of and Trends in Comparative Education from an Analysis of Journal Articles

2010· article· en· W810285408 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Charl C. Wolhuter

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Political scienceLibrary scienceState (computer science)HumanitiesScope (computer science)SociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207