ERIC ED540043: Improving the BC Transfer Experience: Feedback from Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BC Council on Admissions and Transfer is always seeking ways to improve the transfer system for the benefit of students. Doing so is informed by research in one form or another. Questions added to the 2011 Diploma, Associate Degree and Certificate Student Outcomes (DACSO) survey sought to gain a better understanding of why some students are dissatisfied with their overall transfer experience. The good news is that only 193 students reported being dissatisfied, which is consistent with the small number of respondents reporting dissatisfaction in former years. The 2011 research shows that the BC credit transfer system continues to work well for the large majority of students who use it. For the small number of students reporting dissatisfaction, the findings shed light on the nature of their experiences and what would have improved them. Highlights of this survey include: (1) A high proportion of former students who continued their studies at a different institution expected to transfer credits regardless of whether they continued in the BC public system (79%), BC private (47%), or elsewhere in the Canadian public post-secondary system (64%); and (2) 92% of students who moved from BC public colleges, institutes, or teaching-intensive universities to BC research-intensive universities expected to transfer credits and 87% of these students reported receiving all of their expected credits. (Contains 7 figures, 3 tables, and 8 footnotes.) [For related report, "Improving the BC Transfer Experience: Feedback from Students. Research Results," see ED540033.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.500 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".