Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated a computerized version of the mini-AMTB, a brief form of the Attitude Motivation Test Battery, in CALL. Students in first-year French classes participating in a 10-session independent-study multimedia lab completed the computerized mini-AMTB at the beginning of the fifth and tenth sessions and evaluated their state motivation and anxiety at these times. Results demonstrated that the relationships among the components of integrative motivation (i.e., integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, and motivation) during both sessions mirrored those obtained in other studies using the standard AMTB, that these components correlated predictably with the state measures, and that the measures showed high levels of reliability over the interval between the fifth and tenth session. Other results indicated that achievement on the lab exercises in the fifth session correlated significantly with attitudes toward the learning situation during the fifth session and with an instrumental orientation in the tenth session, while achievement in the tenth session correlated significantly with motivation, integrativeness, and attitudes toward the learning situation in the fifth session and with motivation, integrativeness, and an instrumental orientation assessed during the tenth session. The utility of the mini-AMTB, which requires less than 3 minutes to complete, is discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".