Measuring psychological engagement in youth activity involvement☆
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although psychological engagement (e.g., enjoyment, concentration) may be critical in fostering positive outcomes of youth activity participation, too few studies have been conducted to establish its role in development. Furthermore, an established measurement tool is lacking. In the current study, we evaluated a brief engagement measure with two Canadian samples of youth (Sample 1, N = 290, mean age = 16.9 years, 62% female; Sample 2, N = 1827, mean age = 13.1 years, 54% female). We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with structural equation modeling to examine the hypothesized structure of the model. We also assessed the measure's validity by testing relations between engagement and both perceived outcomes and positive features of activity settings. Psychological engagement was best captured by three latent cognitive, affective, and relational/spiritual factors and a second-order latent factor. Also, as anticipated, psychological engagement was associated with features of the activity setting and perceived impact.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it