Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this policy discourse analysis study, I explored the discourse of academic-probation policies for undergraduate students in Dominican higher education institutions. Policies from twelve universities described strategies of power throughout. Academic-probation policies were characterized by their brevity and focus on disciplinary actions for students who did not meet the established academic standards. Key implications are related to issues of student marginalization in higher education institutions. Future policy revisions should address the punitive measures and the implications of being classified below “normal” and should refocus on institutional retention as a policy. Keywords: Academic Probation, Higher Education, Policy Dans cette étude portant sur l’analyse du discours en matière de politiques, je me penche sur le discours des politiques portant sur la probation académique des étudiants du premier cycle dans certains établissements d’études supérieures en République dominicaine. On retrouve, tout au long du texte des politiques des douze universités étudiées, des descriptions de stratégies de pouvoir. Les politiques portant sur la probation académique se caractérisaient par leur brièveté et leur accent sur les actions disciplinaires visant les étudiants qui n’atteignaient pas les normes académiques établies. Les implications principales touchent la marginalisation des étudiants inscrits dans des établissements d’études supérieures. À l’avenir, les révisions des politiques devraient aborder les mesures punitives et les implications d’être classés sous la norme pour se recentrer sur la rétention institutionnelle. Mots clés : probation académique; études supérieures; politique
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".