Are There Types of Academically Entitled Students? A Cluster Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic entitlement (AE), which includes some students’ tendencies to express deservingness of academic outcomes, not based on achievement, may have serious implications, such as academic dishonesty and classroom incivility. Some researchers have suggested that there may be different types of students with regard to AE, implying that motives for entitled behaviour may not be uniform. The current study extends previous work in identifying subtypes of AE. A sample of 751 undergraduate students responded to measures of AE, narcissism, and performance avoidance learning orientation. Cluster analysis revealed five distinct clusters: Entitled Narcissist, Entitled Non-Narcissist, Unobtrusive Entitlement, Not Entitled, and Performance Avoidant. The Entitled Narcissist cluster is small in size and members generally have a higher sense of entitlement. The Entitled Non-Narcissist cluster is larger in size and members tend to have high performance avoidance scores. Understanding typologies of AE could lead to different strategies for addressing highly entitled students. Keywords: academic entitlement, student entitlement, cluster analysis, typologies
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".