MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401369150 · doi:10.55146/ajie.v53i1.1039

Remote secondary education retention: What helps First Nations students stay until, and complete, year 12

2024· article· en· W4401369150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Guenther, Robyn Ober, Rhonda Oliver, Catherine Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Australian Journal of Indigenous Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCurtin University of TechnologyAustralian GovernmentBatchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education
KeywordsProject commissioningPublishingMathematics educationSecondary educationSociologyMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over recent years there has been a strong emphasis on year 12 completion as an indicator of success in remote First Nations education. The research reported in this article explores what students, school staff and community members say leads to secondary school retention and, ultimately, completion. The research was conducted in the Northern Territory and Western Australia during 2023 by a team of researchers from Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Curtin University and University of Notre Dame. The research focused on remote and very remote independent and Catholic schools. The findings suggest several factors encourage retention, including the supportive role of families (although questions remain on how families might also be supported to encourage their children), the quality of teachers and their teaching, specific school programs and initiatives, post-school pathways, and boarding schools. Student aspirations and motivation are also critical for retention. The findings have implications for schools, school systems, state and federal policies, and associated funding priorities.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Australian Journal of Indigenous EducationSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207