MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090655848 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.776

Academic control and action control in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study.

2001· article· en· W2090655848 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond P. Perry, Steven Hladkyj, Reinhard Pekrun, Sarah T. Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAcademic achievementControl (management)Mathematics educationLongitudinal fieldAction (physics)Field (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A contradiction to the typical pattern of academic success occurs when bright, enthusiastic high school students fail after entering university. Two measures, perceived academic control and action control (i.e., preoccupation with failure) were administered to 524 college students at the beginning of a 2-semester course. Achievement-related cognitions, emotions, motivation, and final grades were measured at the end of the course. High-academic-control students exerted more effort, reported less boredom and anxiety, were more motivated, used self-monitoring strategies more often, felt more in control of their course assignments and of life in general, believed they performed better, and obtained higher final grades. Failure-preoccupied students received higher final grades, which corroborated their self-reported performance. Of note, high-control, high-failure-preoccupied students outperformed the other 3 groups by 1 to 2 letter grades.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations444
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational PsychologySame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207