MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889181703 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6877781.v1

Relationships between student mobility and academic and behavioural outcomes in Western Australian public primary schools

2023· other· en· W6889181703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyDisadvantageOddsLiteracyAt-risk studentsAcademic achievementQuarter (Canadian coin)Social mobility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of times children change schools, or student mobility, is associated with multiple adverse outcomes across the life span. This study used administrative data from the Western Australian Department of Education for public primary school students who completed Year 6 between 2016 and 2019 to examine potential associations between student mobility and academic (using National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] participation and scores) and behaviour outcomes (measured through school suspensions). The odds of participating (vs. not participating) in NAPLAN were significantly lower for students with high mobility. High mobility students also achieved significantly lower scores, on average, on NAPLAN literacy and numeracy at Year 3 and Year 5 compared with low mobility students. However, there was no evidence of an association between student mobility and school suspensions. These findings highlight the need for action to address substantial academic detriment for mobile students, many of whom are likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, current policies to address academic disadvantage are likely to exclude those students at substantial academic risk and require revision to be appropriately triaged.

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)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.101 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207