MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095207158

A Web of Ways: Navigating Student Persistence & Retention A Web of Ways: Navigating the Myriad of Perspectives on Student Persistence and Institutional Retention in Postsecondary Education

2008· article· en· W7095207158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Higher educationPostsecondary educationInstitutionKey (lock)Retention rateDistance education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ii Access to education is an important issue for both governments and postsecondary institutions, especially with the shift to a knowledge-based economy in Canada and around the world. Access is only part of the process to developing a knowledge-based workforce; once a student starts his or her postsecondary journey, the focus shifts from issues around access to student persistence. To achieve high levels of student persistence and adequately measure retention rates, retention issues should be approached from both the student and the institution perspective. This paper explores the difference between student persistence and institutional retention and critically analyzes key factors that can impact persistence and retention. It also introduces and analyzes key theoretical perspectives and related retention strategies. The findings of this paper highlight that student retention strategies require a clear understanding of student characteristics as well as strong leadership, and clear communication. Institutions cannot focus on one aspect of student retention as there are

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0160.016
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207