MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257658799

Performance of the Different Methods of Study Financing: A Measurement through the Data Envelopment Analysis Method

2010· article· en· W2257658799 on OpenAlex
Valérie Vierstraete, Éric Yergeau

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

VenueCahiers de recherche · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisGovernment (linguistics)FrontierEfficient frontierParametric statisticsFinanceProduction (economics)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial hardship can significantly undermine post-secondary students’ ability to attain their academic goals: completing their training and obtaining degrees with good grades. This study considers which method of financing studies—loans and bursaries from the Government, student aid granted directly by universities, scholarships or on-campus jobs, off-campus jobs or parental financial contribution—will best help students attain academic success. For these purposes, we use a non-parametric data envelopment method, the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) which will enable us to determine a theoretically efficient production frontier against which the efficiency of students will be measured. Depending on the financing methods used, the conclusions of this study show efficiency differences.

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)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.033 · 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