Understanding Alumni Relations Programs in Community Colleges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose for conducting the study was to explore and describe the use of alumni societies and associations in community colleges, particularly focusing on the intended outcome of their implementation. To collect data for the study, a research-team developed survey instrument was distributed electronically to 250 community college advancement senior leaders. A total of 106 (42%) usable surveys were returned for use in the study. The results of the data collection and analysis described community college expectations for alumni societies, and that this expectation was primarily focused on fundraising. The societies were also critical, however, in career placement for students, developing career-oriented programs, and reviewing curricula. Survey results also indicated that many community college leaders use alumni societies in creative ways, including assisting in faculty searches, hosting recruitment events, and teaching community education (lifelong learning) courses. Study findings are critical for college leaders who are often faced with difficulties in funding existing or new programing. The respondents to the study illustrated how alumni societies can serve as critical catalysts for improving existing programs and expanding the reach and value of the institution. Findings also suggest that alumni societies are perceived to be strong gateways to developing philanthropic support for institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".