The Impact of Gender and Academic Degrees on the Performance of Transversal Competencies in Higher Education Students
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
There is some consensus among academics and employers that transversal competencies are one of the key aspects in training people to adapt to the demands of today's world. Universities make a great effort in the design of training programs, in preparing their teachers in training methodologies and in the evaluation systems to guarantee that their graduates acquire an adequate level of these skills. However, there are few studies that address the impact of gender and academic degrees on the performance of transversal competencies.This study aims to assess whether gender and degree have any impact on the level of transversal competencies obtained at the end of their higher education studies. To this end, we have evaluated 1,614 final year students from 11 higher education centers using a standardized questionnaire on the competencies of Communication, Leadership, Teamwork, Adaptation to change, Initiative, Problem solving, Decision-making, Planning and Organization. We have carried out a Multivariate Variance Analysis to analyze the effect of gender, degree and the interaction between both factors on the students' competence profile. The results show that men perform better in Leadership, Initiative and Decision-making, whereas women score better in Planning and Teamwork skills. Students of Social Sciences degrees have a poorer performance in the competencies than students of Health Sciences and Technical Education. In Planning, women perform better, regardless of the degree, compared to men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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