MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134600655 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n4p128

Adults’ Meaning-Making during Vocational Training

2015· article· en· W2134600655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Svetlana E. Chirkina

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKazan Federal University
KeywordsVocational educationRetrainingPsychologyMeaning (existential)Relevance (law)Dominance (genetics)PedagogyMathematics educationSocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207