MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935044939

Ethno-linguistic pathways to degree completion by institutional type in British Columbia

2018· article· en· W2935044939 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ashley Pullman, Robert Sweet

Bibliographic record

Venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseTagalogDegree (music)Logistic regressionLinguisticsPsychologyMathematics educationMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following contribution examines the antecedents and correlates of baccalaureate degree completion by students’ ethno-linguistic background in British Columbia, a system characterized by multiple pathways to completion. Employing an administrative longitudinal dataset, we compare how completion rates at research-intensive universities, teaching-intensive universities, and colleges and technical institutions differ by ethno-linguistic background. Because pathways are dependent on a competitive admissions process in which high-school marks are the primary criterion, reverse probability weights generate insight into how completion differs by institutional type within a hierarchically structured post-secondary system. Multi-level binomial logistic regression and Karlson-Holm-Breen non-linear decomposition analyses demonstrate that, on a whole, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese speakers have lower odds of degree completion compared to English-speaking students. Additionally, the greater proportion of South Asian, Korean, European, and Other language speakers first entering college and technical institutions widens their completion gap with English-language speakers. In order to equalize completion rates by institutional type and among ethno-linguistic groups, our study highlights the need for research on why degree completion rates are lower at college and technical institutions and how the push and pull factors contributing to this educational pathway differ by ethno-linguistic background.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207