MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156158819

Live and Learn: Using the Fair Housing Act to Advance Educational Opportunity for Parenting Students

2017· article· en· W3156158819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyFair Housing ActMedical educationPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceMathematics educationMedicineGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately one-quarter of undergraduate students are parents. Most collegiate programs, however, are not prepared to meet the unique needs of student-parents. Many post-secondary institutions with residential campuses have policies that explicitly or implicitly exclude student-parents from living in university-provided housing. When housing for student-parents is provided, there are often insufficient units to serve all student families. Although university-provided housing is often expensive, it may be less expensive than off-campus alternatives, especially in destination cities. Additionally, universities often tout the benefits university-provided housing offers students.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207