MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034369055

#Textbookbroke: Findings of a University of Guelph student survey on textbook purchasing behaviours and outcomes

2017· report· en· W7034369055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2017
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingMeaning (existential)Order (exchange)PublishingHigher educationStudent engagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The high cost of commercial textbooks creates financial burdens for many post-secondary students. There have been a number of recent studies exploring the link between high textbook costs and negative outcomes for students. The 2014 publication "Fixing the Broken Textbook Market" by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) reported that in the past decade, "textbook prices have increased by 82%" and that "...textbooks remain one of the largest out of pocket expenses for students and families – meaning that high price tags are yet another threat to affordability and accessibility of education in the United States."1 Surveys conducted in 2010, 2012, and 2016 by the Florida Virtual Campus found that "the high cost of textbooks is negatively impacting student access, success and completion."2 Student groups across Canada have initiated #TextbookBroke campaigns to draw attention to the challenges these trends are creating for students. In addition to rising textbook prices, student groups have pointed out that publishing industry practices such as the bundling of content, the use of access codes, and the frequent updating of textbook editions, have virtually eliminated the used textbook market.3 Students are left with few options when it comes to obtaining affordable course materials. In order to find out whether these same issues were affecting University of Guelph students, the Library partnered with the University’s Central Student Association (CSA) in the fall of 2016 to survey undergraduate students about their textbook purchasing behaviours. The goals of the UG Student Textbook survey (referred to as the #TextbookBroke survey) were to determine whether textbook and course material affordability was an issue on the Guelph campus, and if so, how UG students were affected by it. The survey was sent out just after students had completed their textbook-purchasing decision-making for the semester. The University of Guelph has an undergraduate population of approximately 23,000 and more than 4,000 of these students responded to the survey. Some 3,200 responses also included written comments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207