MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343978402 · doi:10.14288/1.0099300

Ethnic differences and domain specificity in young adolescents’ implicit beliefs about intelligence

2009· article· en· W2343978402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniela Jivkova Pacheva

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupDomain (mathematical analysis)PsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyMathematicsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the presence of ethnic and school - subject domain differences in implicit beliefs about the malleability of intelligence and in attributions for academic success and failure in a sample of 204 Asian -Canadian (N=146) and Caucasian- Canadian (N= 58) eighth-grade students. Students were given a questionnaire measuring their attributions for success and failure in the domains of math/science and language arts/social studies and their beliefs about the malleability of intelligence in general, as well as in the domains of math/science and language arts/social studies. The analyses of the data failed to detect ethnic differences in both attributions and implicit beliefs. The students, however, demonstrated different attributional patterns in the two academic domains. All students distinguished the two domains by attributing failure to effort more often in language arts/social studies and failure to ability in math/science. The study found that students could hold domain specific beliefs about the malleability of intelligence related to the different school - subject domains. Students demonstrating a maladaptive attributional pattern held predominantly the view that intelligence is not malleable, whereas students demonstrating an adaptive attributional pattern held predominantly the view that abilities can be changed through investment of effort. In addition, there was a domain - to - domain correspondence between attributional patterns and implicit beliefs about abilities. The study provides evidence that students perceive differently abilities in the domains of math/science and language arts/social studies, and they demonstrate different motivational tendencies in these domains. Variance in the attributions across domains was parallel to the changes in implicit beliefs in the respective domains, indicating a relation between the two constructs, although additional variables should be considered for explaining the influence of beliefs about intelligence on academic motivation. The findings from the study are discussed in light of contemporary models of achievement motivation and potential educational implications are described.

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)0.000
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 score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207