MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119307489

Motivating Students – Undergraduates’ Expectations From The Educational Process And Perceptions Of Career Success

2019· article· en· W3119307489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cătălina Radu, Georgiana Costache, Corina Frăsineanu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PerceptionPsychologyMedical educationProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Mathematics educationFinanceBusinessMedicineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivation in the educational process is crucial, yet it assumes a series of challenges, especially in the first year of study. In order to improve the Management course we deliver in the first semester of the academic year, we applied a short questionnaire in the first seminar to our first-year students from the Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Insurance, Banking and Stock Exchange – FABBV, at the very beginning of their first year of study. The questionnaire consisted in 16 questions, out of which a quarter were open questions. There were 294 respondents (13 groups of students), who had the opportunity to present their views with respect to their preferences for projects as a teaching and learning method, the main skills they need to develop during university years, and a series of aspects related to their career choice. This paper aims to present first-year students’ expectations from the educational process, as well as their perceptions of career success, as resulted from their responses.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCESame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207