MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607632436 · doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1325855

Visualising the future: surfacing student perspectives on post-graduation prospects using rich pictures

2017· article· en· W2607632436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tessa Berg, Tracey Bowen, Colin Smith, Sally Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Research & Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmployabilityStudent debtContext (archaeology)Graduation (instrument)Higher educationWork (physics)Public relationsRecessionPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogyPsychologyEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gradual commodification of higher education in the context of an increased focus on graduate employability attributes together with evolving labour markets is creating challenges for universities and students alike. For universities, there has been significant investment in careers services and, through institution-wide initiatives, employability or graduate attribute development established to support graduate transitions into work. Meanwhile, for students, experience of part-time work together with pessimistic post-recession employment discourses are challenging the notion that a good degree guarantees their future career prospects. Simultaneously, decreasing financial support from the state has resulted in worrying levels of debt for new graduates. This pilot study was designed to gain a fresh perspective of how students imagine themselves following graduation. The study used rich pictures (RP) as a methodology to explore student views of life beyond university in the UK and Canada. Content analysis of the RPs provided insights into their thoughts and anxieties about potential challenges for the future. Students presented both positive and negative visions of their future, with success in achieving a respectable performance in their final degree as the key differentiator. The insights gained are discussed in the context of related research into students’ concerns and university initiatives to support students throughout higher education and then into graduate employment. The findings revealed student motivations, hopes and fears which can inform the development of impactful university interventions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education Research & DevelopmentSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207