Introducing Uninteresting Tasks to Children: A Comparison of the Effects of Rewards and Autonomy Support
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
Two experiments compared rewards and autonomy support as methods to promote children's self-regulation for an uninteresting vigilance task. Dependent measures were ratings of positive affect, perception of the task's value, and free-choice engagement. ANOVA results revealed some positive effects associated with autonomy support, whereas no effect for rewards was found in either study. The outcomes of most interest were correlations between free-choice behavior and self-reported measures of affect and value, reflecting the level of integration in self-regulation. As predicted by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000), rewards were associated with behaviors incongruent from affect and value, whereas autonomy support led to integrated self-regulation. This finding was first detected in Study 1 and later replicated in Study 2. Together, these results point to autonomy support as a beneficial alternative to the common use of rewards.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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