MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017814790 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4432

An Online College Near Me

2019· article· en· W3017814790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyungjoo Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationQuality (philosophy)Mathematics educationInstitutionHigher educationHomelandProcess (computing)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Online learningEducational technologyPsychologyMultimediaSociologyPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One advantage of online learning settings relative to conventional classrooms is their anytime, anywhere accessibility. While online education programs provide students with flexible learning opportunities free from the restrictions of geographic location, a consistently growing number of students who prefer to learn exclusively online still choose nearby colleges. The choice to attend a local college by exclusively online learners is an interesting phenomenon, because most of these students rarely visit campus at any point in the process of obtaining their degrees. This study aims to explain this localized distance student enrollment pattern using Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System data and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data from the fall of 2016. This research uses a multiple regression technique to explain the relationship between institutional factors and localized distance student enrollment patterns in the US. This study utilizes the C2Q (cost, convenience, and quality) model to explain the local orientation of e-learners. The findings show that convenience and quality of education are significantly associated with each local institution’s share of exclusively online learners in the same state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207