MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034426061

The University of Lethbridge Library's contributions to student retention & success: suggestions and thoughts for consideration

2011· report· en· W7034426061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge) · 2011
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionWork (physics)Higher educationFoundation (evidence)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From this background gathering exercise the 112 recommendations contained in this report were generated.Many of the recommendations are general.Some of them are probably already Library goals and perhaps underway.None of them are easy or particularly straightforward.All should be considered suggestions and thoughts relevant in one way or another to the topic of student success and the role of the Library in that endeavour.The report has two parts.The first part is a brief introduction to the topic that attempts to give context.The second part begins with a very brief overview of the role of the library in the academy followed by the report's recommendations and commentary relating to them.This later portion of the report has six broad themes: Mission, the Need for Data, Engagement (both Academic and Social), Environment, Communications & Outreach, and Miscellaneous.Except for the last, miscellaneous, theme each of the others has been identified in the literature as relevant to student retention and success.My hope is that the report will prove useful in helping the University Library to play its part in assisting all students at the University of Lethbridge to maximize their learning and realize success.This question has been extensively studied.It has the typical definitional complications associated with it and a voluminous body of literature attached to it.One thing that is clear, and agreed upon, is that there are no "magic formulas" for retaining students.(Bell, 2008, 1) A number of factors and characteristics have been identified as contributing (or raising the chances of) student withdrawal.Some relate to the individual student and others relate to the environment/institution.They have been categorized as: psychological, societal, economic, organizational and interactional.(Sarker, 3) Other studies use three categories: Academic, Non-Academic and Other to group variables.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0190.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.019

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge)Same topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207