MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391363004 · doi:10.1080/09645292.2024.2309282

Foundational learning program evaluation and dropouts: are dropouts a heterogeneous group?

2024· article· en· W4391363004 on OpenAlexaffabout
David S. Gray, Louis‐Philippe Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationProgram evaluationPsychologyGroup (periodic table)Medical educationGroup dynamicPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologyPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the characteristics and outcomes of a Canadian foundational learning program's dropouts and compare them with those of the completers. We find significant heterogeneity within dropouts along two dimensions: when they drop out and why. Individuals whose characteristics have been historically associated with greater labour market barriers, and those with lower employability skills are more likely to complete the program. Individuals who face fewer barriers tend to leave at an early stage, while individuals without a high school degree tend to drop out later. Conditional on education, higher employability-skill participants are more likely to leave and return to school.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation EconomicsSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207