MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609268617 · doi:10.1109/mcse.2017.50

Does a Taste of Computing Increase Computer Science Enrollment?

2017· article· en· W2609268617 on OpenAlexaff
Steven McGee, Randi McGee‐Tekula, Jennifer Duck, Ronald I. Greenberg, Lucia Dettori, Dale Reed, Brenda Wilkerson, Don Yanek, Andrew Rasmussen, Gail Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in Science & Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
FundersLoyola University ChicagoNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of ChicagoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceTasteHistory of computingComputational scienceData scienceParallel computingComputer graphics (images)AlgorithmChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reported study investigated the impact of the Exploring Computer Science (ECS) program on the likelihood that students of all races and genders would pursue further computer science coursework in high school. ECS is designed to foster deep engagement through equitable inquiry around computer science concepts. The course provides experiences that are personally relevant. Using survey research, the authors sought to measure whether the personal relevance of students' course experiences influenced their expectancies of success in and value for the field of computer science and whether those attitudes predicted the probability that students pursued further computer science coursework. The results indicate that students find ECS courses personally relevant, are increasing their expectancies of success and perceived value for the field of computer science, and are more likely to take another computing course.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in Science & EngineeringSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207