Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.043
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.995
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The authors investigated students ’ profiles regarding autonomous, controlled, and amotivated regulation and tested whether profile groups differed on some academic adjustment outcomes. Studies 1 and 2 performed on high school students revealed 3 profiles: (a) students with high levels of both controlled motivation and amotivation but low levels of autonomous motivation, (b) students with high levels of both controlled and autonomous motivation but low levels of amotivation, and (c) students with moderate levels of both autonomous and controlled motivations but low levels of amotivation. These first 2 studies revealed that students in the high autonomous/high controlled group reported the highest degree of academic adjustment. Study 3 performed on college students revealed 3 profiles: (a) students with high levels of autonomous motivations but low levels of both controlled motivation and amotivation, (b) students with high levels of both autonomous and controlled motivation but low levels of amotivation, and (c) students with low to moderate levels of the various motivational components. Study 3 indicated that students in the autonomous group were more persistent than students in the other groups. Results are discussed in light of self-determination theory (E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan, 1985).
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Topic
- Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- Université du Québec à MontréalUniversité Laval
- Funders
- Canada Research Chairs
- Keywords
- AmotivationDeci-PsychologySelf-determination theoryIntrinsic motivationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyAutonomy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes