Heterogeneous peer effects of college roommates on academic performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how student peers influence learning outcomes is crucial for effective education management in complex social systems. The complexities of peer selection and evolving peer relationships, however, pose challenges for identifying peer effects using static observational data. Here we use both null-model and regression approaches to examine peer effects using longitudinal data from 5,272 undergraduates, where roommate assignments are plausibly random upon enrollment and roommate relationships persist until graduation. Specifically, we construct a roommate null model by randomly shuffling students among dorm rooms and introduce an assimilation metric to quantify similarities in roommate academic performance. We find significantly larger assimilation in actual data than in the roommate null model, suggesting roommate peer effects, whereby roommates have more similar performance than expected by chance alone. Moreover, assimilation exhibits an overall increasing trend over time, suggesting that peer effects become stronger the longer roommates live together. Our regression analysis further reveals the moderating role of peer heterogeneity. In particular, when roommates perform similarly, the positive relationship between a student's future performance and their roommates' average prior performance is more pronounced, and their ordinal rank in the dorm room has an independent effect. Our findings contribute to understanding the role of college roommates in influencing student academic performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".