Relationships Between Critical Thinking and Attitudes Toward Women's Roles in Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study is the first examination of the relationships between critical thinking--as measured by subscales on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form S (WGCTA Form S; G. B. Watson & E. M. Glaser, 1994)-and attitudes toward women's roles in society--as measured by subscales on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS: J. T. Spence & R. L. Helmreich, 1972). The authors hypothesized that greater critical thinking skills would be associated with more liberal attitudes toward women's roles in society. Results from a sample of 90 nursing and management undergraduates supported the hypothesis. There were moderate correlations between scores from the WGCTA Form S Inference (.24 to .37) and Deduction (.19 to .26) subtests and scores from the AWS Freedom and Independence; Marital Relationships and Obligation; and Vocational, Educational, and Intellectual Roles subscales. These findings suggest that further research with larger samples and cross-cultural samples is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".