MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392009900 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v47i4.54890

Student Attrition from Newfoundland and Labrador's Public College

2001· article· en· W4392009900 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dale Kirby, Dennis Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educators, administrators, and government officials alike are interested in reducing the rate of student withdrawal at Canadian postsecondary institutions. Aside from the loss of financial resources, there are other negative effects associated with early departure from community college or university. This article outlines research into first-semester student withdrawal from engineering technology programs at a campus of the College of the North Atlantic in St. John's, Newfoundland. The research was designed to investigate various aspects of withdrawal of first-semester students enrolled in Engineering Technology programs at the College. The research design incorporated focus groups, interviews, and the collection and statistical analysis of quantitative data. Results of this study showed that 24.9% of first-semester Engineering Technology students withdrew before the winter 2000 semester, and that students' academic difficulties play a significant role in their decisions to withdraw or persist at the College. These results were consistent with Tinto's (1993) Student Integration Model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207