MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006415639 · doi:10.1080/13576500342000040

Academic Self-concept and Educational Attainment Level: A Ten-year Longitudinal Study

2004· article· en· W2006415639 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Guay, Simon Larose, Michel Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueSelf and Identity · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocioeconomic statusEducational attainmentAcademic achievementDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyStructural equation modelingTest (biology)Status attainmentLongitudinal sampleSelf-conceptDemographyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the effects of culture, age, and sex on three measures of handedness: writing hand, Annett's primary handedness items, and a measure based on hand preference for 11 activities. Using data from a large international study, the relationship between the culture in which participants learned to write (as defined by Hofstede's cultural dimensions) and adult handedness was examined. Participants who learned to write in formal cultures were less likely to be classified as left-handed than those who learned in less formal cultures. Older participants and those who learned to write in formal cultures were more likely to be classified as left-handed by the Annett and 11 item measures than by the writing hand classification. Across measures females were less likely to be classified as left-handed than males. Handedness for writing was found to be more sensitive to cultural influences than the other measures. These results suggest that some measures of handedness may be more sensitive to specific handedness aetiologies than others.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations149
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSelf and IdentitySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207