MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245221746

Identifying characteristics of students who opt for distance education

2001· article· en· W2245221746 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elena Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationMathematics educationComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublic relationsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently Web-based instruction is one of the fastest growing instructional technologies, particularly at the University level. At the same time, the number of students who choose web-based format of Distance Education (DE) are also growing rapidly. In accordance with that, the necessity to ascertain what motivates students to enroll in this particular mode arises. The purpose of this investigation was to identify demographic characteristics and the motivational profile of the DE students, as well as to find out what barriers affect the enrollment decision. The subjects for the survey were 240 students enrolled in DE and on-campus studies at the University of Windsor. A 55-item questionnaire was designed in order to identify the motivational factors that influence students' decisions to enroll in Web-Based (WB) courses. The questions focused on students' computer skills, motivational goals for enrollment, and barriers to on-campus learning. Moreover, detailed demographic characteristics (including age, gender, marital status, vocational level, etc.) were obtained from the participants. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2001 .Q87. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 41-04, page: 0887. Adviser: Larry Morton. Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2001.

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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207