Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matched groups of Grade VI pupils obtaining low, medium, and high scores on the Test Anxiety Scale for Children were compared on the basis of their performances on four school examinations to determine the extent and nature of the relationship between anxiety and school achievement. Analyses were made of the data pertaining to the performances of the boys and girls together, and of the boys and girls separately, on the four examinations, combined, and on each individual examination. Out of a total of 45 possible differences 6 were found to be statistically significant. Results for the girls were negative throughout but medium-anxious boys were found to do less well than their low- and high-anxious mates on two of the four examinations. Groups of boys and girls together showed differences similar to the boys. Statistically significant differences pointed to a “U" type curvilinear relationship between anxiety and performance. An analysis was also made of the power of each of the items on the anxiety scale to discriminate between high- and low-achievers. Twenty-nine of the total of 30 test items failed to discriminate in a statistically significant way between high- and low-achievers. Findings suggest limitations to the use of individual anxiety scores for interpretive or predictive purposes without further investigation. Revisions of a procedural nature were suggested as possible means of increasing the likelihood of obtaining more meaningful results from an investigation into the effects of anxiety on performance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".