MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099792310

Is Past Performance a Predictor of Future Performance?

2016· article· en· W7099792310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Point (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Graduate studentsAcademic achievementHigher education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether a set of predictor variables could be identified from pre-enrollment and post-enrollment data that would differentiate students who advance to a major in engineering from those who do not was studied with students at Auburn University, Alabama. Also studied was whether predictors could be isolated that would identify students likely to graduate with another major and whether any relationship exists between the grades earned by students and 15 courses selected from the pre-engineering curriculum. Participants were 868 freshmen who entered as pre-engineering students over the course of 7 years. Variables used were high school total grade index, high school mathematics grade index, high school science grade index, high school humanities grade index, and first quarter college grade point average. Analyses indicated that first quarter college grade point average was a significant indicator in the prediction of success in higher education. In addition, high school grade indices also predict at a high rate. (Contains 30 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. C) Ci)

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207