The Relationship between Multiple Intelligences and Listening Self-Efficacy among Iranian EFL Learners
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The present paper aimed at investigating the relationship between listening self-efficacy and multiple intelligences of Iranian EFL learners. Initially, ninety intermediate male learners were selected randomly from among 20 intermediate classes in a Language Academy in Yazd. In order to assure the homogeneity of the participants in terms of overall language proficiency, PET was administered to the learners. Afterwards, based on the standard deviation and mean, 60 participants were chosen from among the original ninety learners. Following that, the learners were asked to complete the listening self-efficacy and multiple intelligences questionnaires. The results of statistical analysis indicated that there was a significant relationship between total multiple intelligence scores and the Listening self-efficacy of the learners. Moreover, all of the intelligence types, except kinesthetic intelligence as well as verbal and visual intelligence were significantly related to Listening self-efficacy. Additionally, it was found that interpersonal intelligence uniquely explained 5.4 percent of the variance in Listening self-efficacy scores and is thus the best predictor of listening self-efficacy scores.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it