Student Self-Efficacy and Gender-Personality Interactions
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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