MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165673996 · doi:10.1109/icalt.2007.66

Analysing the Relationship between Learning Styles and Cognitive Traits

2007· article· en· W2165673996 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning stylesPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive styleProcess (computing)CognitionComputer scienceMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to provide more holistic adaptivity to students has brought us to investigate the relationship between learning styles and working memory capacity (WMC). The aim of this investigation is to study the relationship between learning styles and WMC in order to get additional information about the students. This information can be used to make more holistic adaptivity possible by improving the student modelling process of both learning styles and WMC. An experiment with 297 participants was conducted. Findings suggest that relationships from WMC to the active/reflective, the sensing/intuitive, and the visual/verbal learning styles exist, whereas the suggested relationship from WMC to sequential/global learning styles could not be found.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207