Analysing Student Performance on the Major Field Test in Business at a Canadian University
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
The Major Field Test in Business (MFTB) is a nationally administered student evaluation that measures the accumulated knowledge of undergraduates enrolled in a four-year degree program. Research to date has focused primarily on understanding how different variables correlate with performance on this standardized test --such as student grades, gender and ethnicity. The research objectives of this essay are to analyse the ambiguous results found in previous studies and to highlight how interaction effects among variables can be used to better explain test success. Using data on student performance collected over 11 semesters at a Canadian university, this essay uses a multi-variable regression model to understand the factors affecting scores on the MFTB. The model results suggest that examining the interaction between variables provides important insights and can help to better explain the ambiguity in prior studies. This study is unique in that it uses a statistical measure known as the extra sum of squares F-test to demonstrate the significance of interaction variables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it