Motivations des étudiants autochtones: Pourquoi étudier au niveau collégial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lea Bragoli-Barzan, Tanya Chichekian, Karolane Beaulieu L’objectif principal de cette etude etait de dresser un portrait des types de motivations des etudiants autochtones les incitant a poursuivre leurs etudes au niveau collegial et d’identifier certains facteurs influencant leur retention scolaire. Des entrevues semi-structurees aupres de 9 ( n = 3 autochtones et n = 6 non-autochtones) professionnels de l’education (p.ex. specialiste de l’apprentissage, agent de soutien a l’ecriture, aide pedagogique individuelle, coordonnateur de centres de ressources autochtone ou conseiller psychosocial) accompagnant les etudiants lors de leur transition du secondaire au collegial ont ete menees. En accord avec la theorie de l’auto-determination (Deci et Ryan, 1985), les resultats ont permis d’identifier les differents types de motivations influencant la poursuite d’etudes collegiales des etudiants autochtones, tels que percus par des professionnels de l’education. Les resultats revelent des disparites importantes entre leurs motivations de types extrinseques et intrinseques. Aucune motivation intrinseque n’a ete identifiee alors que des motivations extrinseques regulees de maniere externe, introjectee et identifiee ont pu etre relevees. Finalement, favoriser l’autonomie des etudiants, s’adapter a leurs styles d’apprentissage et entretenir une relation de confiance avec les etudiants contribuent a leur retention scolaire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".