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
This paper will examine the possible effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation in Preschool to College students and argue that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. The Overjustification hypothesis by self-perception theory, as well as the cognitive evaluation theory (CET) will be discussed, including some of the benefits of self-motivation for learning. Various studies will be explored to show that extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation. Results suggest that students that are offered an extrinsic goal subsequently show less intrinsic interest and demonstrate poorer conceptual learning and performance in the long term. Alternately, students that are regulated by intrinsic motivations experience positive consequences at school. This paper will conclude on the note that intrinsic motivation plays a pivotal role in learning, and that teachers and other social agents can help promote intrinsic goals to motivate conceptual learning and performance, even when students hold a stronger extrinsic goal orientation. Finally, various factors that can enhance and develop intrinsic motivation will be discussed, and suggestions will be provided for further research on this topic.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.112 | 0.008 |
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