MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514114310 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n3p141

Learning Styles and Academic Achievement in College Students from Buenos Aires

2015· article· en· W1514114310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agustín Freiberg Hoffmann, Juliana Beatríz Stover, Fabiana Uriel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de Buenos Aires
KeywordsCognitive styleStyle (visual arts)Learning stylesPsychologyPreferenceAcademic achievementMathematics educationCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning styles analyze cognitive-intellectual aspects participating in every learning situation (Curry, 1983). The study describes the behavior of this concept in 300 college students of various degree courses (Biology, Industrial Engineering, Law, Nutrition, Psychology, and History of Art). Goals aimed at the analysis of learning styles according to personal and academic variables-gender, age, major and academic achievement, as well as the assessment of each style’s ability to predict the students’ achievement. Results showed a general medium preference for every style in students of every degree course. Pragmatist style was manifested in males and in younger students. Converging style was remarkable in Engineering, as well as Nutrition and Biology students, compared to Psychology and History of Art. Analyzing styles by academic achievement, significant differences in Assimilating and Converging types were verified in Biology high-achievers. Finally, academic achievement was explained by a regression model where every learning style participates as a predictor. Results are discussed on a theoretical basis as well as considering practical outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207