MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099439384

Using BCSSE Data

2012· article· en· W7099439384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Acquisition and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudent engagementSurvey data collectionHigher educationLongitudinal dataService (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is more important than ever for institutions to create the conditions that foster student success. Toward this end, many institutions seek to better understand their incoming first-year students. The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) annually collects data about students ’ high school experiences and their expectations for the first college year from tens of thousands of firsttime college students prior to their enrollment at four-year institutions in the U.S. and Canada. The most powerful and effective use of BCSSE data is when it can be combined with data from its companion survey, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Institutions participating in both surveys receive the BCSSE-NSSE Combined Report that provides an in-depth cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of their first-year students ’ experiences. There are many possible uses of BCSSE data. They can be used to enhance the first-year student experience by informing the design of precollege orientation programs, student service initiatives, and other programmatic efforts. BCSSE results, especially when linked with NSSE, can be used to shape initiatives that align the first-year experience with recognized effective educational practices. BCSSE-NSSE results can be used in many ways, including:

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.047

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.110 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage Acquisition and EducationFrench-language works237,207