MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387605158 · doi:10.5539/hes.v13n4p94

Synthesis and Model Development of Thai Undergraduate Dropout Risk Factors

2023· article· en· W4387605158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Timothy Scott, Poonpilas Asavisanu

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychologyDropout (neural networks)Psychological interventionInclusion (mineral)Higher educationMedical educationPersistence (discontinuity)Academic achievementCausal modelPedagogySocial psychologyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study synthesizes existing research to explore factors affecting student attrition in Thai higher education institutions and develop a causal model for dropout risk. The synthesis uses a mixed-method approach following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, drawing on six years of Thai contextual studies on student attrition, academic intention, commitment, and persistence. Through a systematic review of multiple databases, 21 quantitative or mixed-method studies were identified for inclusion, which yielded 107 items representing 186 occurrences related to student dropout or persistence factors in Thai higher education. These items were grouped into nine clusters: academic integration, attitudinal and behavioral factors, classroom and institutional environment, emotional distress, family support, financial considerations, institutional support, social integration, and student satisfaction. The model synthesizes research findings on student attrition in Thai universities, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the factors influencing students' persistence and dropout risk. By considering the interplay between these factors, the model aids in developing targeted interventions and informed policy decisions that promote academic success and ensure the long-term efficacy of Thai higher education institutions. The model's application can potentially guide researchers, educators, and policymakers in addressing the challenges students face within the Thai higher education system, ultimately fostering a more supportive and conducive environment for academic achievement.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207