MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972067134 · doi:10.1177/0165025408095558

Age and school-type differences in children's beliefs about school performance

2008· article· en· W1972067134 on OpenAlexaff
Lars‐Erik Malmberg, Brigitte Wanner, Todd D. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDisengagement theoryNormativeDevelopmental psychologyAcademic achievementSocial psychologyAgency (philosophy)Structural equation modelingMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age and school-type differences (primary school and three types of secondary school) in self-related beliefs about ability, effort, and difficulty were investigated in a study of 1723 Berlin youth. Consistent with selective ability-stratified schooling, multi-group structural equation models revealed: (1) mean-level belief differences reflecting assimilation effects among secondary school students, (2) belief variances were mostly narrower among secondary school students reflecting restricted social comparison opportunities, and (3) school type moderated relationships between beliefs. Primary school students thought ability was fixed, that effort paid off, and they used normative task difficulty for gauging how effortful they were. Haupt-/Realschule and Gesamtschule students thought they were less effortful and put in less effort. Haupt-/Realschule student achievement was unrelated to their agency belief in ability and personal difficulty, reflecting a pattern of educational goal disengagement. Gymnasium school students seemed to maximize the use of their ability through effort.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207