MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169953651 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v35i3.183516

The role of economic factors, including the level of tuition, in individual university participation decisions in Canada

2005· article· en· W2169953651 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Read Johnson, Fiona T. Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceUnemploymentHigher educationVariation (astronomy)Affect (linguistics)Demographic economicsUniversity educationEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study uses individual data from the Canadian Labour Force Survey to consider economic factors in university participation decisions by persons aged 17-24 from 1976 to 2003. The level of real tuition is one economic factor that may affect the university participation decision. There is also regional variation in the opportunity cost of university attendance; in the reduction in the probability of unemployment after obtaining a university degree; and in the proportion of university budgets used for financial support of students. In addition, there is some national variation by gender and over time in the return to a university education. This study finds that higher tuition levels in the 1990s did reduce the probability of university participation by persons aged 17,18 or 19 relative to a province- specific trend increase in university participation. Before drawing a policy conclusion from this result, it would be necessary to consider what the trend terms represent in the university participation decision.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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