MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014826105 · doi:10.2190/cs.16.3.c

The Path to Graduation: Factors Predicting On-Time Graduation Rates

2014· article· en· W2014826105 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of College Student Retention Research Theory & Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)DebtLoanPsychologyMedical educationStudent debtHigher educationFinanceBusinessEconomicsMedicineEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses an integrative persistence model to examine college students' expected time-to-degree as a function of sociological and economic factors. The data used in this study are from the 2010 Ohio Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS), a web-based survey of undergraduate college students. Of the students surveyed, 25% indicated that they plan to take longer than 4 years to complete their undergraduate degree. Findings from the study indicate college environment and personal financial characteristics are important factors in determining time-to-degree. Students who overspend, have a car loan, credit cards, or high debt, and those who feel stress from their finances are more likely to take longer than 4 years. Students are more likely to finish in 4 years or less if they live or work on campus, have a high GPA, or have met with a financial counselor or advisor. Implications for higher education administrators and parents 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.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.419 · 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