Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components That Explain Attitude toward Statistics
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
The purpose of this research is to measure the students' attitude towards statistics. It was necessary to define a certain type of research subjects, so we chose higher education students from the economic-administrative and engineering areas that were taking statistics as a subject in both, public and private universities located in Veracruz - Boca del Rio metropolitan area. The instrument used was the Survey of Attitude towards Statistics (SATS), and we applied it to a sample of 116 students. The statistical technique used was an exploratory factorial analysis with an extracted principal component. The Statistics Hypothesis: $Ho: \rho = 0$ has no correlation, while $Ha: \rho \neq0$ does. Statistics test to prove: $\chi^{2}$, Bartlett's test of sphericity, KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin), Measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) with a significance level: $\alpha=0.01$; $ p<0.01$ Decision rule: Reject $Ho$ if $\chi^{2}$ calculated $>\chi^{2}$ tabulated. The results obtained from the Bartlett's test of sphericity, KMO (0.600), Chi square $\chi^{2}$ 74.146 $>$ $\chi^{2}$ tabulated, Sig. $0.00 < p 0.01$, MSA (USF 0.673; ANX 0.521; CNF 0.624; LIK 0.613 and MTV 0.523) provide evidence to reject $Ho$. Global results point out that usefulness and anxiety are the most significant components in measuring students' perception towards statistics. Evidence obtained was enough to reject the null hypothesis, thus we can infer that attitude can be measured based on the cognitive, affective and behavioral components.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it