MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243632016 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2016.05.18

The School as an Influencing Factor of Truancy

2016· article· en· W4243632016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dirk Baier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Substance Use and School Attendance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruancyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGermanJuvenile delinquencySocial psychologyClinical psychologyCriminologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As previous research has shown, truants have a higher risk of becoming delinquent. However, the causes of truancy are only seldom analyzed in criminological research. Since truancy is a school related behavior, it can be assumed that school factors play a major role in causing it. Using a German wide representative sample of almost 40,000 pupils of the ninth grade (mean age: 15 years; 50.3 percent male) from 1,200 schools several school factors and their relationship with truancy are tested. These factors are theoretical derived from a push-and-pull-model. Push factors are for instance teacher bullying or violent schoolmates, pull factors are responsive teachers and positive relationships with schoolmates. The results show that teacher bullying and low teacher control significantly increase truancy. Compared with individual risk factors like self-control or school achievement school factors are of lower importance. Additional analyses reveal that there are interaction effects between individual and school level variables: A high level of teacher bullying particularly increases truancy of pupils with bad grades.

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)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicYouth Substance Use and School AttendanceFrench-language works237,207