MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115889790 · doi:10.5539/jel.v2n3p1

Gender Differences in Children’s Math Self-Concept in the First Years of Elementary School

2013· article· en· W2115889790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Staffan I. Lindberg, Janosch Linkersdörfer, Jan-Henning Ehm, Marcus Hasselhorn, Jan Lonnemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingSelf-conceptPrimary educationMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyAcademic achievementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the course of elementary school children start to develop an academic self-concept reflecting their motivation,thoughts, and feelings about a specific domain. For the domain of mathematics, gender differences can emergewhich are characterized by a less pronounced math self-concept for girls. However, studies are rather sparseregarding the early years of elementary school education, hence, the point in time when such gender differencesemerge yet remains a matter of debate. In our study, we found that the math self-concept of elementary schoolchildren (n = 81) declined from first to second grade. While no differences in math achievement were observedbetween girls and boys, it became apparent that girls’ math self-concept was already less pronounced than themath self-concept of boys in the first years of elementary school. Our findings emphasize the importance ofconsidering such gender differences even at the beginning of school education.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207