MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2350295488 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n3p94

Multiple Intelligences Patterns among Students at King Saud University and Its Relationship with Mathematics’ Achievement

2016· article· en· W2350295488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Refat A. A. Kandeel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of multiple intelligencesMathematics educationPsychologyAcademic achievementSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the multiple intelligences patterns of students at King Saud University and its relationship with academic achievement for the courses of Mathematics. The study sample consisted of 917 students were selected a stratified random manner, the descriptive analysis method and Pearson correlation were used, the researcher prepared multiple intelligence scale for this study. The results showed an overall appearance of all multiple intelligences patterns of the sample students in the following order: self, social, bodily, logical, verbal, visual, musical and natural intelligence. It was also observed that progress medical track students in most of the multiple intelligences patterns compared with other tracks (Engineering, Humanities), as well as students of math 140 compared with students of other courses (Math130, Math150, Stat140). There is impact of visual intelligence, bodily, logical, and sometimes social, musical and natural on the Mathematics’ achievement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207