Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary intent of this study was to examine the possible role of early learning experiences in contributing to sex-related differences in selected science achievement items. The science achievement items were drawn from the 1982 BC Science Assessment on the basis of a difference in P value (percent correct) of 10% or greater between males and females. The items were administered to a group of 23 8 high school students randomly selected from three schools in the Vancouver School District. The major data base for this study was obtained through interviewing 15 students with the basic question, "Can you tell me what you were thinking when you chose your answer for question 1.. 2.. ?" The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and condensed into five major categories which provided the main analytical framework for the study. Among the significant findings of this study were: 1. Boys' explanations for their responses to the test items referred to considerably more informal learning experiences than girls. 2. Girls' explanations for their responses to the test items referred to considerably more formal learning experiences than boys. 3. Even though girls used more formal experiences than boys to justify their answers, their performance was still substantially lower than boys for the majority of test items. 4. Girls expressed some negative reactions to a number of test items, particularly items in the physical sciences. 5. A substantial number of girls expressed uncertainty in their responses for a number of items.None of this uncertainty appeared among the boys. The findings of this study suggest that prior experiences appear to contribute to some of the sex-related differences observed in the science achievement items. It appears from this study that informal experiences reinforce and enhance school learning and could possibly result in superior performance levels.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".