MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400890135 · doi:10.3126/irjmmc.v5i2.67727

Exploring Dropouts as Challenges in Higher Education in Nepal: A Comprehensive Review

2024· review· en· W4400890135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mayanath Ghimire, Anjay Kumar Mishra, Jaishree Bolar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Research Journal of MMC · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Leadership and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationPolitical scienceMedical educationPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to analyse the dropout rate of campus level of students in Nepal. The researchers adopted the process of scientific review as a meta-synthesis to analyse the dropout rate of the campus level students. An in-depth archival analysis followed by an intensive review would be strategies adopted during the scientific review. Secondary data was gathered by searching Google for scholarly publications and articles published between 2001 and 2024. The students want part-time jobs during the study. Such opportunities are less common in Nepal. The research study revealed that Nepali students gave their first priority to Australia, Canada, the USA, and Europe for their higher studies. After finishing their studies, they desired to stay there due to their job security. They applied for green card and permanently stayed there. On the other hand, Nepal lost young and skilled manpower who stayed abroad as immigrants. The study reveals that government can prevent brain-drain by proving financial assistance and employment opportunities to bachelor’s level students. The Nepalese government should make appropriate policy to retain its young workforce. Otherwise, its adverse impact will be seen soon.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.895
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Research Journal of MMCSame topicEducational Leadership and InnovationFrench-language works237,207