MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7145072063

〈論文〉高短連携と高校生の進路選択の現状と課題

2013· article· ja· W7145072063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
英敏 澁田, 美智子 吉野

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Quarter (Canadian coin)Selection (genetic algorithm)Technical universityMultiple choiceHigher education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Abstract] Using survey data on course selection after graduation whose subjects were senior high school students attending mock lesson at Kyushu Junior college of Kinki University for 5 years from 18^ through 24^ of Hesei period, we examined an association between their response and an actual course selection. There was a significant difference between female and male students with respect to the proportion of students who advanced to university or junior college(p<0.001). The proportion of students whose course selection after their graduation was a technical college(27.5%)was higher than national average(i.e., 17.0%)by 10.5%. Furthermore, of high school students who selected “others” as their course selection after graduation, many of them could not decide their courses after their graduation. Since half of them(50.0%) went to a technical college /polytechnic, and more than quarter of them(27.3 %)went a university, its necessity to have intensive aggressive counseling for the choice of their future course.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207