MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233977854 · doi:10.1002/nsr.30179

Predict enrollment spikes and declines using state and federal employment data

2016· article· en· W4233977854 on OpenAlex
Halley Sutton

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecruiting & Retaining Adult Learners · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueState (computer science)InstitutionPlan (archaeology)San JoaquinPolitical scienceHigher educationPublic administrationBusinessEconomicsFinanceEconomic growthComputer scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — What metrics do you use to accurately plan for and predict the ebbs and flows of adult student enrollment your institution will see, years into the future? At the Society for College and University Planning annual conference, Matt Wetstein, assistant superintendent and vice president of instruction and planning at San Joaquin Delta College in California, shared the information‐gathering procedures he used to analyze data regarding the economic impact on enrollment numbers to more accurately predict enrollment declines and surges. “Conventional wisdom tells us that state higher education enrollments are driven by the state revenue economy,” Wetstein said. “We wanted to figure out if that was true and what that meant for our institution.” Read on to learn how to forecast your institutional enrollment so as to ensure accurate expectations for your administrative leadership teams.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.297 · 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