Differences Between Traditional and Distance Education Academic Performances: A Meta-Analytic Approach
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
<P class=abstract>This meta-analysis research estimated and compared the differences between the academic performance of students enrolled in distance education courses relative to those enrolled in traditional settings, as demonstrated by their final course grades/ scores within the 1990-2002 period.<BR> <BR> Eighty-six experimental and quasi-experimental studies met the established inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis (including data from over 15,000 participating students), and provided effect sizes, clearly demonstrating that: (1) in two thirds of the cases, students taking courses by distance education outperformed their student counterparts enrolled in traditionally instructed courses; (2) the overall effect size d+ was calculated as 0.37 standard deviation units (0.33 < 95% confidence interval < 0.40); and (3) this effect size of 0.37 indicates the mean percentile standing of the DE group is at the 65th percentile of the traditional group (mean defined as the 50th percentile). </P>
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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