Educational selection in Northwestern Ontario / by Peter B. Worrell. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principal purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which the community college and university student populations are different with respect to socioeconomic composition.In addition to comparing the socioeconomic composition of the two populations, the study compares the two populations using a multitude of independent variables that have been theoretically proposed to effect levels of educational aspiration and post-secondary educational selection.A second reason for this study is to compare the two student populations regarding their general perspective of the labour market opportunity structure.Post-secondary candidates are now faced with the problem of a labour market condition which cannot sufficiently absorb postsecondary graduates, particularly those from the university (Canada Department of Manpower and Immigration, 1970; Harvey and Chamer, 1975; Harvey, 1979).The effect of this condition on levels of educational aspiration and educational selection is as yet unknown.A third reason for this study is to provide a variation in the approach to educational aspiration and/or educational selection research.Most status attainment studies have examined high school student populations in terms of what post-secondary institution they plan to attend as compared to actually observing the students in one.This study will examine students who have already realized the high school-held post-secondary school educational aspiration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".