MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870753 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19575

Multi-year analysis of academic buoyancy data for first-year engineering students at the University of Saskatchewan

2025· article· en· W4412870753 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Juan Abelló, Sean Maw

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyMathematics educationLibrary sciencePsychologyComputer sciencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic buoyancy is the ability of a student to handle everyday school stress and setbacks. Over 700 first-year engineering students from five semesters and three cohorts at the University of Saskatchewan completed survey questions designed to measure academic buoyancy. Statistical analyses show that female students score lower than male students across all four academic buoyancy markers in the first semester (Fall) but not the second (Spring). Students from a rural background score lower than students from an urban background in one buoyancy marker (ability to handling study stress) in the second semester (Spring) but not the first (Fall). Two buoyancy markers were different across some cohorts. There were otherwise no differences between genders, regions, age, nor urban vs rural background (domestic students only). Our findings provide insight on student wellbeing as it relates to academic buoyancy markers, particularly in regards to female students in first-year engineering.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207