MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044105799 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n11p24

Exploring factors influencing the retention rates of Indigenous students in post-secondary education

2020· article· en· W3044105799 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sherry Arvidson, Cheyanne Desnomie, Shauna Davies, Florence Luhanga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHigher educationIdentity (music)PsychologyMedical educationPedagogyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In comparison to Caucasian students, Indigenous students are outnumbered when it comes to enrollment in post-secondary education programs. Designated seats for Indigenous students often sit empty. With an aim to succeed academically, Indigenous students have had to develop a strong sense of resiliency and identity to overcome barriers to attend institutions of higher learning. Questions still remain as to why the seats are not being filled or what is preventing Indigenous students from enrolling in post-secondary education resonate among faculty and administrative leaders. Tinto’s model of persistence confirmed the importance of integrating social involvement in academia. Students need support to achieve academic success and personal satisfaction. Motivational factors consisting of specific family member encouragement and exploring a better way of life was seen as the main reason to enroll in post-secondary education. Limitations of support at the peer and institutional levels were seen as challenging for Indigenous students and often times had an impact on academic completion. Questions as to why the seats are not being filled or what is preventing Indigenous students from enrolling in higher education programs led to the purpose of this study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207