MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012811062 · doi:10.5539/ies.v13n4p141

The Predictive Validity of Admission Criteria for College Assignment in Saudi Universities: King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences Experience

2020· article· en· W3012811062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdulmohsen Alkushi, Abdulaziz Althewini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive powerPredictive validityLogistic regressionEntrance examBinMultinomial logistic regressionMedical educationMultivariate analysis of varianceVariance (accounting)PsychologyMultivariate statisticsMedicineMathematics educationStatisticsMathematicsClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Admission criteria can be used to predict Saudi student performance in college, but significant differences across several studies exists. This study explores the predictive power of admission criteria for college assignment using King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences as a model. Scores from high school and standardized tests were collected for 1,595 students. Data were analyzed with multinomial logistic and multivariate linear regression. A formula was generated to determine student college assignment based on their admission criteria profile. The results showed that all admission criteria were significant predictors of college assignment but accounted for only 21.1% of the variance. Based on the results of this study, admission criteria may not be reliable predictors of college assignment on their own, and additional criteria for measuring student success are needed.

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)0.017
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207