MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095784570 · doi:10.1123/apaq.22.2.179

Children Theorize about Reasons for Recess Engagement: Does Expectancy-Value Theory Apply?

2005· article· en· W2095784570 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationExpectancy theoryPsychologyValue (mathematics)Developmental psychologySalientInclusion (mineral)Social psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusion in activity at recess can have important implications for the health and for the physical, social, and cognitive development of children, according to play theorists (Pellegrini, 1995). This study examined whether children described their decisions (and those of fictitious others) to engage in recess activities in achievement terms consistent with expectancy-value theory (Eccles, Wigfield & Schiefele, 1998). Ten Grade 3 children with different patterns of recess engagement did confirm that attainment, interest, utility, and cost values were salient to decisions to participate. Children distinguished among value components, and confirmed that expectancies and values contributed to activity choices, providing support for the conceptualization of recess as an achievement setting in which expectancy-value theory applies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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