Relation entre la conception de l’intelligence et les buts d’apprentissage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude examine les possibilités prédictives du modèle de Dweck au sujet de relations entre la conception de l’intelligence et le type de buts d’apprentissage. La mesure traditionnelle de la conception de l’intelligence s’appuie sur des items qui renvoient à la conception statique, par opposition à une conception dynamique. Toutefois, le caractère mutuellement exclusif des deux conceptions reste à démontrer. Un questionnaire a été administré à 487 étudiants universitaires. Les résultats montrent que les deux conceptions de l’intelligence sont négativement reliées, mais que cette relation est modérée. En outre, ils ne fournissent qu’un appui partiel aux relations postulées par le modèle de Dweck. La discussion propose des explications portant sur la coexistence de ces deux types de conception de l’intelligence.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".