MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123612922 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v3n2p186

Academic Achievement of Students with Different Learning Styles

2011· article· en· W2123612922 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLearning stylesMathematics educationAcademic achievementVariance (accounting)Significant differenceSample (material)Test (biology)Style (visual arts)Achievement testStatisticsStandardized testMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the impact of learning styles on the academic achievement of secondary schoolstudents in Iran. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (1999) was administered in eight public schools in Tehran.The mean of test scores in five subjects, namely English, science, mathematics, history and geography, wascalculated for each student and used as a measure of academic achievement. A total of 285 Grade 10 studentswere randomly selected as sample of this study. The results of the analyses of variance show that there is astatistically significant difference in the academic achievement of the Iranian students that correspond to the fourlearning styles [F(3, 285) = 9.52, p < .05]; in particular, the mean scores for the converging and assimilatinggroups are significantly higher than for the diverging and accommodating groups.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.303 · 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