MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploration of Multiple Intelligence by Using Latent Class Model

2012· article· en· W2322910032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaista Ismat, Junaid Sagir Sidiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent class modelClass (philosophy)PsychologySet (abstract data type)Interpersonal communicationCompetence (human resources)Goodness of fitLatent variableSocial psychologyMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we have tried to explore, "multiple intelligence" in the educated youth through questionnaire items by applying latent class models. A questionnaire consists of 50 questions. These questions have constructed in the light of Howard Gardner theory of multiple intelligence to explore "multiple intelligence". A survey was conducted on 399 adult students from different regions of Karachi. For statistical analysis we have selected three sets with seven variables, and one set with 4 variables each with binary response. On these four sets up to three classes latent class models were applied. The Probability of positive response (?iy) in each class were estimated by using E.M algorithm and interpreted the class as on the basis of ?iy values. By assessed goodness of fit latent classes/ groups were identified. Two class (two groups of people) model was found in all four data sets. A group (class) consists of the people who think that they have strong verbal expressions abilities, effectively use language to express himself/herself theoretically and poetically, they have good ability to recognize musical pitches, tones and rhythms, we may call this class as "self competence and self esteem" as "musically talented" as "socialize" (having high interpersonal ability).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207