MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952457330 · doi:10.5539/jel.v8n4p8

Investigating the Role of School-Based Extracurricular Activity Participation in Adolescents’ Learning Outcomes: A Propensity Score Method

2019· article· en· W2952457330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hsien‐Yuan Hsu, KoFan Lee, John E. Bentley, Sandra Acosta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropensity score matchingPsychologyAcademic achievementMathematics educationSelection biasDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to apply a propensity score method that could control for selection bias at both the student-level and school-level in an investigation of the causal effect linking participation in school-based extracurricular activity (SBEA) to adolescents’ learning outcomes. The data for this study were drawn from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) data set. The final sample comprised 12,247 10th graders; 6,026 (49.20%) were males. A propensity score method incorporating marginal mean weighting through stratification was implemented to analyze the data. Results showed that 10th graders who had proper intensity of participation in SBEA (6–15 hours a week) slightly outperformed peers who did not participate in SBEA on the performance of mathematics achievement in 12th grade. Regarding the link between SBEA participation and adolescents’ long-term learning outcomes, results indicated 10th graders in 2002 with low to moderate levels of intensity (i.e., 1–15 hours) were more likely to achieve higher education credentials by the year 2012 when compared to non-participating peers.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207