MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513665386 · doi:10.1080/07377363.2015.1042997

Academic Advisors of Military and Student Veterans: An Ethnographic Study

2015· article· en· W1513665386 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle A. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Higher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Military Integration
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyActive dutyMedical educationGraduate studentsEthnographyMilitary personnelFocus groupEmpathyStudent affairsMental healthVariety (cybernetics)Higher educationPedagogyMedicineSociologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the introduction of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, there is an influx of active-duty military and student veterans enrolling in postsecondary and graduate-level education. The role of an academic advisor increases significantly with this influx of enrollment. The purpose of this study was to determine how a graduate-level academic advisor perceives his or her role in advising military and student veterans. By using an adapted methodology of organizational microethnography, commonalities of graduate-level academic advisors to military and student veterans are defined and analytically described. Ethnographic data collection included individual interviews and focus group sessions. Academic advisors of military and student veterans serve as mentors, counselors, coaches, and educators—possessing commonalities of empathy, accessibility, availability, and approachability. In addition, academic advisors of military and student veterans contend with a variety of mental health issues experienced by their students.

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)0.005
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Continuing Higher EducationSame topicEducation and Military IntegrationFrench-language works237,207