MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162823683 · doi:10.3200/jrlp.139.1.47-55

Relationships Between Critical Thinking and Attitudes Toward Women's Roles in Society

2005· article· en· W2162823683 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyCritical thinkingDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.337 · 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