MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942714373 · doi:10.5539/ies.v12n5p35

School Engagement for Avoiding Dropout in Middle School Education

2019· article· en· W2942714373 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cristina Hennig Manzuoli, Clelia Pineda Báez, Ana Dolores Vargas Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de La Sabana
KeywordsPsychologyAttendanceDropout (neural networks)MetacognitionCognitionDevelopmental psychologySchool dropoutMathematics educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School engagement is a key factor in maintaining school attendance and in diminishing dropout rates. In this study, four dimensions that compose school engagement—cognitive, affective, behavioral, and agentic—were evaluated with a self-report questionnaire (Veiga, 2013), and comparisons between rural and urban schools were made. A total of 802 seventh-graders (51.2% boys and 48.8% girls), the majority of the studied children were between the ages of 12 and 13 (71.7%), attending public schools in Colombia, responded the questionnaire. The research responds to the need to examine engagement in developing countries. Findings indicate that the cognitive and agentic dimensions obtained the lowest means. This result suggests that students should engage in activities that help them recognize their metacognitive abilities and strengthen their classroom participation. Each of the four identified dimensions is analyzed, and strategies are proposed for developing them appropriately.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207