MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1666437242

Student Reasons for Withdrawing from the University of Alberta: 1978-79

2012· article· en· W1666437242 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul C. Sartoris, Allen R. Vanderwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionCourseworkPsychologyMedical educationBoredomSocial psychologyPedagogyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire relating to reasons for withdrawing from the University was administered to 627 University of Alberta students during the 1978-79 winter session. Almost half the students withdrawing were in the first year of their program, with the percentage of men and women withdrawing closely paralleling their representation in the intramural popula tion. Faculty withdrawal rates were generally lower than was the case in an earlier attri tion study undertaken in 1971, these decreases possibly reflecting recent quota restric tions. In decreasing order of frequency, the reasons for withdrawing labelled by students as were as follows: to take employment or transfer to a different educational or training program, personal reasons (such as boredom, family problems, etc.), need for a break from studies, academic problems (wrong faculty, coursework irrelevant), failing courses or not measuring up, and financial difficulties. Six other reasons were included on the questionairc but were considered relevant by relatively few respondents. Some of the implications for universities interested in lowering their attrition rate arc discussed and the need to regularly monitor attrition is recommended as a readily available index of an institution's health.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207