MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022777051 · doi:10.7202/1069653ar

Exploring university-to-college transfer in Ontario: A qualitative study of non-linear post-secondary mobility

2020· article· en· W3022777051 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Reana Maier, Karen Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceHigher educationPsychologyPerceptionQualitative researchCoping (psychology)Medical educationPedagogySocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we explored the experiences of Ontario students who have engaged in a ‘reverse transfer’, i.e. moving from university-to-college (UTC). Data was collected through qualitative interviews with 20 participants who began their post-secondary journey in a university program, but left that program before completing it, and subsequently pursued a college program. We focused on the factors that led to the decision to reverse transfer, participants’ experiences and perceptions of the reverse transfer process, and what, if any, barriers they experienced. We found that motivations for leaving university were distinct from, though sometimes related to, motivations for pursuing college. Reasons for leaving university were clustered around three themes: academic struggles, mental/physical health/special education need struggles, and future prospects. These were highly interconnected and characterized by difficulties, ranging from mild to severe, coping with university. Motivations for pursuing college were more practical and straightforward, relating to subject interest, college learning environment, location, and future prospects. While most participants reflected very positively on their decision to transfer, there were some negative or ambivalent reflections about having left university before completing their degrees. These were largely related to a sense of personal failure and/or the negative reactions of others, particularly parents. Personal and external (usually parental) negative reflections were tied to cultural and societal expectations about high achievement and perceptions of university education as superior to college education. We conclude with policy recommendations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207