MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255001378

The impact of single-sex versus coeducational school environment on girls' general attitudes, self-perceptions and performance in mathematics

2000· article· en· W2255001378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carole Vezeau, Thérèse Bouffard, Roch Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of research and development in education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle sexPrivate schoolPerceptionPsychologyMathematics educationSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of research and development in educationSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207