MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193385106 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.vi0.188965

What matters more? What matters less? Changes in the transition to post-secondary between two Toronto high-school cohorts

2021· article· en· W3193385106 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Robson, Ashley Pullman, Reana Maier, Paul Anisef, R. M. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaYork UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceCohortTransition (genetics)ImmigrationMultivariate analysisSociologyDemographic economicsHigher educationEducational attainmentAcademic achievementPsychologyDemographyMathematics educationPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from two Toronto student cohorts that entered high school five years apart, this study uses descriptive and multivariate techniques to examine short-term change in the predictors of four possible pathways after high school: confirming a place in university, confirming a place in college, applying but no admittance, or not applying at all. From a comparative cohort perspective, the analysis considers various overlapping ascriptive and school experience factors that contribute to unequal transitions—from race, gender, and immigration background to early achievement, attendance, and suspensions. Even across a short time period, there is change in transition patterns. The results highlight that a comparative cohort approach provides insight into how the transition to post-secondary education in an urban environment changes even over relatively short periods of time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207