The impact of single-sex versus coeducational school environment on girls' general attitudes, self-perceptions and performance in mathematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to many researchers, particularly in mathematics and sciences, a single-sex high school environment is more favorable than a coeducational one for girls' development of general attitudes toward learning and self-concept. However, other researchers argue that the issue is unclear because many studies compared subjects from public coeducational schools with subjects of private single-sex school without controlling this social cultural factor. The present study was aimed at verifying the superiority of single-sex schooling controlling for the type of school girls attended. Several attitude scales toward mathematics were administered to a sample of 1084 French-Canadian junior and senior students enrolled in one of the following school settings: private coeducational, private single-sex, public coeducational, public single-sex. Results showed that whatever the coeducational or single-sex environment junior students from private schools had more positive attitudes and higher performance than those from public school. However, whereas school environment had no impact on senior students from public school, in private schools more positive attitudes and higher performances were found for students enrolled in a single-sex rather than in a coeducational environment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".