MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579115212

A Grey Relational Analysis between Some Selected Affective Factors and English Test Performance

2014· article· en· W1579115212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong Mei

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Grey relational analysisTest anxietyAnxietyTraitTrait anxietyMathematics educationSocial psychologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With Grey relational analysis (GRA), the paper examined the sensitivity of eight variables influencing test performance at branch level. The eight variables involved included language proficiency, test anxiety, self-esteem, achievement motivation, achievement goal, English proficiency test anxiety (EPTA), state anxiety and trait anxiety. Results showed that: (1) Besides language proficiency, motivation-to-avoid- failure was most sensitive to English test performance; (2) Trait and state anxiety were more sensitive to English academic performance than general test anxiety as well as the four branches of the EPTA; (3) Compared with the other three branches of the EPTA, EPTAS-listening was most intimate to English test performance; (4) All the affective concepts involved in this study were quite sensitive to English academic performance at branch level because their comprehensive grey correlation degree values were all over 0.50. This research has practical implications for English teachers and students seeking to enhance their performance in English proficiency test.

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)0.021
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207