MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146036244 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v2n2p85

Exploring the Student Engagement Instrument and Career Perceptions with College Students

2012· article· en· W2146036244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tabitha Grier‐Reed, James J. Appleton, Michael C. Rodriguez, Zoila M. Ganuza, Amy L. Reschly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationPsychologyStudent engagementPerceptionReliability (semiconductor)Medical educationMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) is a relatively new inventory designed to measure cognitive andaffective engagement in school for middle and high school students. We explored the reliability and validity ofthe SEI for 122 college students. Results provided evidence for adequate to good reliability andvalidity--indicating a good fit between the data and a 4-factor structure based on Teacher-Student Relationships,Peer Support at School, Future Aspirations and Goals, and Family Support for Learning. Two factorsrepresenting affective engagement (Peer Support at School and Teacher-Student Relationships) emerged asimportant predictors of career perceptions in our college student sample. Peer Support at School also predictedcollege GPA. Facilitating continuity in the operationalization and measurement of student engagement acrosssecondary and post-secondary settings, findings also highlight the potential importance of student engagement tocareer development.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207