The Effect of Commitment to a Learning Goal, Self-Efficacy, and the Interaction Between Learning Goal Difficulty and Commitment on Performance in a Business Simulation
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 effect of commitment to a learning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and goal commitment with performance was investigated using a highly complex business simulation. Participants (n = 128) needed to acquire knowledge in order to perform the task effectively. The correlation between commitment to the learning goal and performance was positive and significant (r = .47, p < .001). Commitment was also a moderator of the learning goal–task performance effect. The relationship between self-efficacy and performance was partially mediated by commitment to the learning goal. Performance was a partial mediator of the relationship between goal commitment and self-efficacy. Seventy-five percent of the participants self-set a performance goal. The correlation between self-set performance goals and performance was positive and significant (r = .31, p < .001).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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