Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study reveals that female students have significantly lower self-efficacy level and self-efficacy strength than their male peers in a course in Principles of Economics. This general conclusion does not hold for all personality types. The general conclusion of lower self-efficacy level in economics for female students compared to those of their male peers does only exist for female intuition and feeling ( NF ) and intuition and thinking students ( NT ) but not for the female sensing and perceiving student ( SP) . Furthermore, the result is revealing that the significant higher self-efficacy level for male students does only exist for male intuition and thinking students ( NT ) and not for male NF and SP students. Female students have significantly lower self-efficacy strength than their male peers. This does only exist for female intuition and thinking ( NT ) and sensing and perceiving ( SP ) students, but not for female NF students. The general result that male students have significantly higher self-efficacy strength than their female peers, does only encompass male intuition and thinking ( NT ) students and not the male SP and NF students. This study tells us that we should be cautions to conclude that self-efficacy is uniformly affected by gender. Gender-personality interactions do matter.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".