The Effects of a Peer Mentoring Program on Academic Success Among First Year University Students
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
The present study examines the effect of participation of first-year university students in a full-year peer mentoring program as well as individual differences in motivation in relation to outcome measures of retention and achievement. A sample of 983 first year students completed the Academic Motivation Inventory (Tremblay, 1998) and agreed to provide final grades; 537 students were randomly assigned to participate in the program, while the remainder served as a control group. Mentored students who continued to participate mid-way through the second semester had significantly higher final grades than did students in the control group. There was no effect on retention from year one to year two, however data are being collected on retention and grades for all groups for the length of their undergraduate careers. Students high in anxiety in the mentored group showed achievement comparable to that of low anxiety program participants, whereas students in the control group with high anxiety scored significantly worse on achievement than did their low anxiety counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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