MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392626711 · doi:10.1002/cc.20611

Examining the relationship between Hispanic Serving Community college Title III grants and STEM associate degree completion

2024· article· en· W4392626711 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Corral, Daniyal Rahim

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Community Colleges · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptCommunity collegeMedical educationEducational attainmentAssociate degreePsychologyStatistics educationGerontologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hispanic‐Serving Community Colleges enroll and educate a large share of Hispanic postsecondary students. Due to work trends and demographic changes, Hispanic and other historically underrepresented students play a crucial role in shaping the next generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) scholars and practitioners. We use data from the National Center for Education Statistics and a difference‐in‐differences technique to estimate the association between federal capacity building grants aimed at improving STEM degree attainment outcomes and associate degree completion. We find receipt of a Title III grant was associated with about a 30% increase in the total number of STEM associate degrees awarded. Further, the grants nearly doubled the number of STEM associate degrees awarded to Hispanic students, on average. This positive relationship is driven by institutions receiving more than one grant. We conclude by discussing these findings and providing federal and institutional recommendations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.094 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Community CollegesSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207