MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291008493 · doi:10.1177/0098628315603182

Psychology Students’ Understanding of the Skill-Based Learning Fostered Through University Assignments

2015· article· en· W2291008493 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

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRelevance (law)Career developmentMathematics educationPedagogyHigher educationApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined first-year psychology majors’ ( N = 195) beliefs about the relevance of two types of university assignments (individual essay and group wiki) and their connection to the development of career-related skills. Students reported that assignments were only somewhat relevant to their career goals, and relevance ratings were typically justified by referring to assignment features (content and type) rather than skill development. Our results suggest that it is important for faculty to be explicit with students—particularly those in the early stages of their degree—about the career-related skills that their course-based activities are intended to foster.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.116 · 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