Bibliographic record
Abstract
although he studied previously at Hamilton College and was a research assistant in the study that gave rise to this book.How College Works describes life at this small liberal arts college in upstate New York.Although idyllic in setting, selective, and elite in stature, Hamilton College does not appear to be particular extraordinary.Aside from the nine-to-one student-faculty ratio, life on campus is depicted as being what one would expect at many small, liberal arts colleges.The book focuses on the phases in students' paths through their years in college: Entering, Choosing, Engagement, Belonging, Learning, and Finishing.The central argument of the book is reflected perfectly in the closing sentence of the book's introduction: "What really matters in college is who meets whom, and when" (p.16).Faculty who think they are at the centre of students' success at university, or a student affairs professional who has been developing a suite of skills workshops, will be equally dismayed at the authors' findings.What matters most to students transitioning to higher education is developing friendships.To those familiar with students, this should not be a surprise.However, the impact is the simplicity of the book's argument.Colleges are not simply about programs, but more importantly are a gathering of people.The authors assert that, "good people, brought together in the right ways, we suspect are both necessary and perhaps even sufficient to create a good college" (p.5).Underlying the authors' argument is that integration into the community is crucial to students being retained by the university.The authors provide plenty of evidence from their project to show just how important relationships are to student success.The authors continually emphasize how important it is for students to find friendships-particularly in the first few weeks of their first term.Ultimately, the authors argue that students need relationships with two to three good friends and one to two professors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.017 |
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".