MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138529350 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n6p108

The Determinants of Intra-Group Relationships in the Longitudinal Research of Training Group

2015· article· en· W2138529350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ekaterina I. Kolesnikova, Т.В. Колесникова

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySeriousnessDominance (genetics)Social psychologyCompetence (human resources)Affect (linguistics)Longitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologyPreferenceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the results of a study of the determinants of intra-group relations on the example of the relationship sociometric indexes with the personal qualities and values, the level of intellectual development. A group of students is considered as the environment of the development of the individual student and the formation of its competence. In a longitudinal study it was received that the aspiration of the student to the joint activity affects the formation of his personal values and qualities and are correlated with the recognition in his training group. The seriousness, the dominance and the development of thinking affect the preference of students learn together with the student (sociometric status), which increases his self-control. Sex and intergroup differences in the determinants and the relationship are not installed.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.649
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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