College Faculty and Student Affairs Staff Interactions with Parents of Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On college campuses today, student services staff (administrators and support staff) and faculty members are not only interacting with students but also with their parents. College employee interactions with prospective students and their parents may be common during information sessions and open houses. However, outside of the recruitment season, less is known about the experiences of student affairs staff and faculty who interact with parents. Through semi-structured interviews, this study examined employees’ interactions with parents of students at four colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario, Canada. Of the interviewees, nine faculty members and 11 student affairs staff (non-academic employees) described interacting with parents. The analysis of the interviews revealed several themes. These included college employees’ interactions with parents regarding students’ program choice and educational decision making, academic challenges, and support services. Professional practices that serve parents (and other supporters) could contribute to institutional goals, including post-secondary student persistence. This study’s research findings may inform student affairs practice and inspire new ways to support students’ college journeys in cooperation with parents and family members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".