Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the research problem is defined by practical and theoretical components. Evidence of theoretical and practical significance, reliability of scientific knowledge about the nature of learning activity contrasts with the real state of affairs in educational psychology denoting the insufficient number of studies on character of motives of adults’ educational activity in the system of postgraduate education, “motivational conflict” between the basic high education and the following one acquired at the faculty of vocational retraining. The purpose of the article is to identify the content and professional nature of adults’ learning activities during special vocational retraining, its dependence on a number of psychological factors, the most important of which is meaning-making. Meaning-making is the establishment of links between the results of learning and the motives stimulating this activity, i.e. between the objective of training activities and its motive. The leading method of study of this problem is the ascertaining experiment. In the result a quite close relationship between motives of educational activity and the fundamental needs and attitudes to learning are revealed. The factor of effectiveness of adults’ learning in the period of additional vocational education is the relationship of motives of educational activity with the need for knowledge, affiliation, achievement and dominance, which determines the “strength” of perceived learning activities and obtaining of successful learning outcomes, attitude to learning as a whole. Article proceedings are valuable for organizers of vocational retraining of educational psychologists, academics, as well as valuable in the development of recommendations for policy-making in additional education in the area of “Practical Psychology in 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".