Factors Affecting Low Academic Achievement of Open University's Students in Indonesia
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
This research aims to analyze the factors that cause low student academic achievement. To achieve these objectives, this research used a survey design to collect data from respondents. Before the research, the researchers conducted a pre-survey interview technique to several respondents in order to obtain information to formulate a construct that will be analyzed as well as to determine the research instruments. This research was conducted in regional office Denpasar with students from Non-Pendas Program with low academic achievement as the respondents. There were 71 respondents with a response rate of 92.5%. Based on these results, there are some important things that can be concluded: Lack of motivation, lack of study time and no teaching materials are factors which lead to low academic achievement with low impact.Not following the online tutorial, not forming a study group, lack of test preparation and lack of enrichment of the materials are factors which lead to low academic achievement with quite high impact.Not supportive learning situation and the lack of study planning are the factors that lead to low academic achievement with low impact.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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