MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900835406 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2017-077

Who Goes into STEM Disciplines? Evidence from the Youth in Transition Survey

2018· article· en· W2900835406 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ross Finnie, Stephen Childs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyEmpirical evidenceSet (abstract data type)CohortSample (material)Public relationsPsychologyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an empirical analysis of access to post-secondary education (PSE) as it pertains to students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, who are vital to the nation’s economic performance, especially with respect to its information and communication technology (ICT) sector. The analysis is based on the rich Youth in Transition Survey, Cohort A (YITS–A), which follows a representative sample of Canadian youth age 15 in 1999 through to the normal point at which PSE decisions are made. The main findings include that female students go into STEM disciplines at a much lower rate than male students, even after controlling for a broad set of control variables, including high school grades in math and science. Conversely, visible minorities, especially those who are first-generation immigrants, and particularly those from a specific set of regions, participate at much higher rates than others. These results have implications for the ICT talent pool of the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.349
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.

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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207