MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005641723 · doi:10.1111/hequ.12248

Paying back student loans: Demographic, human capital and other correlates of default and repayment difficulty

2020· article· en· W3005641723 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger Pizarro Milian, David Zarifa, Brad Seward

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreNipissing UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalDemographicsStudent loanLogistic regressionDefaultLoanDemographic economicsGovernment (linguistics)Actuarial scienceEconomicsEmpirical researchSurvey data collectionWork (physics)BusinessFinanceEconomic growthDemographySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Government‐sponsored student loans have emerged over the decades as a primary method of financing post‐secondary education across most North American jurisdictions. Despite this, the empirical literature examining the correlates of repayment difficulty and default in Canada has remained stagnant in recent years. This study taps into an underutilised data source—the 2013 National Graduates Survey—to examine the relationship between demographics, human capital, borrowing behaviour and other known predictors and repayment difficulty. Our logistic regression models demonstrate that disability status, geographic region and borrowing behaviour are correlated with loan default and repayment difficulty, while failing to verify the existence of other demographic effects routinely found in the existing literature. We discuss the implications of these findings, along with multiple avenues for further empirical work on this topic within Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education QuarterlySame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207