Do Peers Affect Undergraduates’ Decisions to Switch Majors?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, dormitory room and social group assignment data from a college are used to investigate peer effects on college students’ decisions to switch majors. Results reveal strong evidence of such peer effects at both the room and the social group level. Most notably, at the room level, the dense concentration of same-major roommates deters students from switching majors; having one or two same-major roommates has no significant effect on major switching, indicating strong nonlinearity of peer effects at the room level. Such nonlinearity is not observed among social group members. Results also reveal evidence that students’ choices of new majors are affected by peers’ majors. Peers are more likely to choose the same destination majors than nonpeers. In choosing their new majors, students do not necessarily follow their peers indiscriminately. Their decisions seem to be influenced more by short-term academic requirements than by long-term job prospects. Finally, peer effects on major switching and major choices are stronger at the dormitory room level than at the social group level in most cases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it