MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892321142 · doi:10.3386/w25168

Time-Use and Academic Peer Effects in College

2018· report· en· W2892321142 on OpenAlexafffund
Nirav Mehta, Ralph Stinebrickner, Todd Stinebrickner

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaJacobs FoundationAndrew W. Mellon FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines academic peer effects in college.Unique new data from the Berea Panel Study allow us to focus on a mechanism wherein a student's peers affect her achievement by changing her study effort.Although the potential relevance of this mechanism has been recognized, data limitations have made it difficult to provide direct evidence about its importance.We find that a student's freshman grade point average is affected by the amount her peers studied in high school, suggesting the importance of this mechanism.Using time diary information, we confirm that college study time is actually being affected.

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207