Academic Self-Perception and Its Relationship to Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred and fifty ‐ five students (average age, 10 years 7 months) were initially tested on reading, arithmetic, and academic self ‐ perception. One year later they were tested again. Initial academic scores accounted for a large proportion of the variance in later academic scores. The children’s self ‐ perceptions of academic competence accounted for significant variance in academic performance one year later. However, neither the academic self ‐ perceptions at the beginning of the study nor changes in self ‐ perceptions over time predicted changes in academic performance. Self ‐ percep ‐ ion of academic competence cannot play a simple, causal role in academic achieve ‐ ment. Key words: self ‐ perception, competence, achievement Cent cinquante ‐ cinq eleves (âge moyen : dix ans, sept mois) ont ete examines au niveau des competences alphabetiques et mathematiques, ainsi que la perception de soi scolaire. Les resultats initiaux des examens scolaires expliquaient la plupart de la variance liee aux resultats des seconds examens. Les mesures de la perception de soi expliquaient aussi une part significative de cette variance. Cependant, ni la percep ‐ tion de soi initiale, ni les changements de perception de soi ne semblent indiquer les changements de performance scolaire. Nous constatons que la perception de soi scolaire ne peut jouer un role causal simple dans la performance scolaire. Mots cles: perception de soi, competence, performance
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".