Western Educational Longitudinal Study (WELS): Survey of In-coming Transfers in Transition, Late Fall Quarter, 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Western Educational Longitudinal Study (WELS) was conceived as a process to obtain data more relevant to Western and its mission than survey data had been able to obtain previously. Rather than continuing to rely on outside survey forms, researchers developed a Western-specific survey form. Development of this survey took about three years, with researchers soliciting input from dozens of individuals, departments and offices. Along the way, WELS researchers also noted where data was already being collected so that doubling up on survey questions was minimized. The final survey form was considered by all participants to be as thorough and Western¬ specific as it could be. In the inaugural WELS survey, 1580 in-coming 2003 freshmen participated. These respondents became the baseline cohort. From this baseline and also from the general population of Western students samples have been and will continue to be drawn for subsequent WELS surveys. The fall, 2005, transitions survey was administered to all 1029 transfer students who entered Western in the fall quarter, 2005.Of those students, about 85% had taken the WELS baseline in the summer, 2005. Students were emailed the transition survey at the end of fall quarter and several reminders followed through the beginning of winter quarter. On a limited basis, students were called to take the survey over the phone.Of the transfer students who took the survey, 480 took it online and 19 took it over the phone. A total of 499 transfer students took the survey yielding a response rate of 48%. General topics covered in the late fall/early winter, 2005, survey included: initial perceptions and expectations; academic self-perceptions; college preparedness, concern, and motivation; high school experiences; and personal self-perceptions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".