MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000999308 · doi:10.1080/02601371003700584

Development of a scale to measure lifelong learning

2010· article· en· W2000999308 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Lifelong Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningScale (ratio)PsychologyVocational educationDispositionStrengths and weaknessesMathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary objective: to develop a scale to measure students’ disposition to engage in lifelong learning. Research design, methods and procedures: using items that reflected the components of lifelong learning, we constructed a 14‐item scale that was completed by 309 university and vocational college students, who also completed a measure of deep and surface learning. Main outcomes and results: the lifelong learning scale had reasonable reliability, and showed some differences between students in different discipline and institutions. As hypothesized, lifelong learning was positively related to the deep approach to learning and negatively to the surface approach. Conclusions: although the factors that contribute to the lifelong‐learning attributes measured here have yet to be investigated, this questionnaire can provide an overall picture of a group’s inclinations towards lifelong learning. It can help evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions, or allow individual students to understand their learning strengths and weaknesses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.378 · 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