MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939856350 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v30i1.183346

Studying Part-Time at University: From Research to Policy to Practice

2000· article· en· W1939856350 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David A. Keast

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceSet (abstract data type)Order (exchange)Higher educationTime managementResearch policyPublic relationsPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogyMathematics educationManagementPublic administrationBusinessEconomicsMedicineComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last few years universities in Canada have seen a noticeable decline in part-time enrollments. This trend has given rise to a number of pressing concerns regarding the needs and aspirations of part-time students and the status and future of part-time study. Unfortunately, these concerns exist against a backdrop of relatively little research on part- time university students, programs, and attendance which is useful for decisions on policy and practice. This paper highlights the results of research which examined part-time programming at Canadian universities and the needs and characteristics of undergraduate student populations with potential for part-time degree completion. It is argued that the mature, working, part-time learner constitutes a distinct nontraditional group, with a distinct set of educational needs and expectations. The findings suggest changes which may be necessary in university functioning in order to better serve these student populations in the future. Results are compared with other recent research and implications for institutional policy and practice are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.381 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207