MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080229626 · doi:10.1177/0743558400151004

Attitude versus Aptitude

2000· article· en· W2080229626 on OpenAlexaffabout
James E. Côté, Charles G. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintuitivePsychologyHuman capitalAptitudeAcademic achievementSurpriseSample (material)Predictive validitySet (abstract data type)Intelligence quotientMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal study explores the relationships among a set of student input and environmental throughput variables in predicting output human capital skills acquisition and academic achievement at a large Canadian university. The framework for exploring these relationships is referred to as the integrated paradigm of student development. To our surprise, it was found that the input intelligence quotient was negatively related to output human capital skills and to various measures of adjustment to this university setting. In contrast, a measure of input motivation for personal and intellectual development best predicted output skills acquisition and academic achievement, independent of intelligence quotient. Although these counterintuitive findings may be sample- and university-specific, the instrument package representing the integrated paradigm of student development appears to provide a useful diagnostic battery for evaluating how well different types of students make the transition to different types of university settings.

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)0.006
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.508
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.099 · 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

Citations81
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent ResearchSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207