MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2190829594 · doi:10.5539/hes.v5n6p1

Relationship between High School Mathematical Achievement and Quantitative GPA

2015· article· en· W2190829594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer L. Brown, Glennelle Halpin, Gerald Halpin

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationTrigonometryCurriculumEngineering educationAdvanced PlacementSample (material)Regression analysisMathematicsPsychologyPedagogyEngineeringChemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for STEM graduates has increased, but the number of incoming freshmen who declare a STEM major has remained stagnant. High school courses, such as calculus, can open or close the gate for students interested in careers in STEM. The purpose of this study was to determine if high school mathematics preparation was a significant prerequisite for success in the pre-engineering curriculum at the post-secondary level. The College Freshman Survey was administered to a sample of 2,328 incoming freshman students, then their survey responses were matched with the grades and standardized test scores provided by the university’s institutional research office. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict quantitative pre-engineering GPA. The most significant predictor of quantitative GPA was adjusted ACT math score. Other significant contributors to the models were calculus, algebra II, trigonometry, and algebra I grades. The results suggest that high school preparation in specific mathematics subjects does have a positive impact on success in pre-engineering education.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207