Students’ School Engagement and Their Truant Behavior: Do Relationships with Classmates and Teachers Matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on school dropout suggests that the decision to drop out of school is not a sudden or immediate one, but rather the result of a long-term process of withdrawal from school. While school engagement and truancy are among the most prominent constructs to be associated as precursors of school dropout, the relationship between these two constructs needs further analysis. Our study establishes more comprehensive understanding of school engagement and truancy by focusing on students’ individual characteristics and their relationships in school, particularly the student-teacher relationship and relationships with peers. It demonstrates that among the individual characteristics the migration background is crucial for school engagement, while the student age is important for truancy. Furthermore, peer-relationships are positively related to students’ school engagement, but not to their truancy. Furthermore, a good student-teacher relationship not only has positive impacts on students’ school engagement, but is also negatively associated with truancy, while school engagement mediates this path.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it