Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longitudinal study of young women’s career decision making in science, engineering, and technology being conducted between 1997-2000 used focus groups to explore with students their experiences, identify critical elements, discuss strategies, outcomes, and students ’ suggestions for change. A total of twenty-six focus groups were completed at six post-secondary institutions in Alberta. Participants from 2 year technical diploma programs, 2 year college-based university transfer programs (rural and urban settings), 4 year undergraduate degree programs (rural and urban settings), and masters programs were included. Participants ranged in age and experience from those that had entered directly from high school and were in the first term of their first year to those completing their final year of study. Women who had returned to upgrade their qualifications or to re-train following company downsizing or privatization of government agencies were also represented. From the content analysis of the focus group transcripts the following issues emerged in relation to retention: 1) the importance of practical experience, 2) the influence of teachers, parents, professionals, 3) perception of the learning environment, 4) level of financial support, 5) interpersonal relationships, 6) educational policies. Each issue will be expanded upon and examples of participants ’ experiences will be used as illustration. Problem areas will be identified for discussion.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".