MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003378264 · doi:10.1037/a0022070

Exploring processes linking shyness and academic achievement in childhood.

2010· article· en· W2003378264 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathleen Hughes, Robert J. Coplan

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Psychology Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyAcademic achievementDevelopmental psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of the current study was to explore the relations between shyness, academic engagement, and academic achievement in childhood. Participants were (n = 125) children (aged 9-13 years) attending public school boards in Canada. Children completed self reports of shyness and were administered a test of nonverbal IQ. Academic achievement was assessed through both teacher ratings and standardized tests of reading comprehension and mathematics. As well, a new teacher-rated measure of academic engagement was created to assess student participation and on-task behavior in the classroom. Among the results, shyness was negatively related to teacher-rated achievement but not related to standardized test scores. Academic engagement was significantly and negatively related to shyness, and positively related to all measures of achievement. Finally, academic engagement partially mediated the relation between shyness and teacher ratings of achievement. These findings suggest that poorer teacher-rated academic performance in shy children may be partially accounted for by a lack of academic engagement in the classroom. Future studies are needed to explore why shy children are less likely to be engaged in the classroom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations148
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Psychology QuarterlySame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207