MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W8247919

INSTITUIÇÕES DE ENSINO SUPERIOR: ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE RECEITAS E DESPESAS UNIVERSIDADES PÚBLICAS BRASILEIRAS, CANADENSES E AMERICANAS

2005· article· en· W8247919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valter Saurin, Cláudia Maria de Freitas, Annelise da Cruz Serafim Zilio, Beatrice Maria Zanellato Fonseca Mayer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O objetivo deste trabalho A© analisar as estratA©gias de financiamento de forma comparativa entre InstituiA§Aµes de Ensino Superior - IES pAoblicas, realizando uma comparaA§A£o das fontes de recursos e das despesas por categorias econA´micas. Os dados foram levantados atravA©s dos demonstrativos financeiros existentes na internet de cada instituiA§A£o. Este estudo inclui nove universidades pAoblicas, sendo trAas universidades federais no Brasil (IES-BR), trAas universidades estaduais nos Estados Unidos (IES-US) e trAas universidades provinciais no CanadAi (IES-CA). Com base na anAilise comparativa das mA©dias percentuais das receitas totais no perA­odo de 2001-2003, verifica-se que as IES-BR tAam o maior percentual de participaA§A£o de recursos pAoblicos, com 86,78%, seguindo as IES-CA com 60,87% e por Aoltimo as IES-US, com 37,08%. A principal despesa refere-se aos salAirios e encargos sociais: IES-BR 79,96%; IES-CA 65,09% e IES-US 53,26% da receita total. INSTITUTIONS OF SUPERIOR EDUCATION: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PRESCRIPTION AND EXPENDITURES IN BRAZILIAN, CANADIAN AND AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ABSTRACT The main objective of this work is to compare and analyze the financial sources and expense strategies of public universities, expressing this comparison in percentage terms. The data was collected from financial statements obtained from the Internet. This study included nine public universities, three Brazilian public universities (IES-BR), three American state universities (IES-US) and three Canadian provincial universities (IES-CA). Based on the comparative analysis of total receipts in the 2001-03 period, it can be seen that the IES-BR have the greatest percentage of public resources, with 86.16%, followed by the IES-CA, with 60.62% and finally the IES-US, with 37.08. The principal expenses are regarding salaries and benefits: IES-BR 80.06%; IES-CA 64.62; and IES-US 53.26% of total income.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation and Public PolicyFrench-language works237,207