Predictors of University Adaptation and Grades for Direct Entry and Transfer Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the differences between students entering university directly from high school vs. those transferring from other higher education institutions for the variables of the academic self-control model (general resourcefulness, academic resourcefulness, academic self-efficacy, preparedness, failure attributions, and university adaptation). The goals of the research were to test the following: (1) the full academic self-control model using a large sample of undergraduate students to predict university adaptation and final grades; (2) if the pathways of association implied by the model are equally predictive regardless of whether students are direct entry, university transfer, or college transfer; and (3) if the means of the variables differed among these three groups. Results replicated previous studies showing that, for the entire sample, general resourcefulness, preparedness, explanatory style for failure, and academic self-efficacy were strongly predictive of academic resourcefulness, which, in turn, was strongly associated with university adaptation and grade. Moreover, the indirect and direct pathways of the model were found to be equivalent for the three student groups. Comparisons of the groups’ means for the psychological variables revealed the university transfer group to have the most favourable scores followed by the college transfer group. The findings suggest that both college and university transfer students bring valuable skills to undergraduate programs and the keys to their university adaptation and academic achievement are the same as for direct entry 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".