On Effort and Achievement of Business Undergraduate and Graduate Students under a Disastrous Event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The 2011 tornado event in Alabama left college students with a choice to be exempt of their final examinations or participate in an attempt to improve their overall grades. This incident provided an opportunity to conduct an observational study with the goal of measuring the academic effort of business undergraduate and graduate students. The observation methodology utilized total enrollment of 3804 with an undergraduate enrollment of 3298 and a graduate enrollment of 506 for the spring term of 2011 which included 969 undergraduates and 276 graduates. A stratified random sampling was used to collect enrollment data according to 8 disciplines within the business college. Findings of this study suggest graduate students outperform undergraduate students in grade improvement. In fact, the eligibility rate and successful rate for obtaining a higher grade after taking a final examination for both undergraduates and graduates were statistically insignificant. However, the participation rate for taking the final examination between undergraduates and graduates was statistically different.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".