A Measure of Mathematical Self-Concept in Young Adults 16-24 Years Old: A Cross-Cultural Comparison with a Focus on Gender and Numeracy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Girls attend less education in mathematics than boys when the subject becomes an elective in upper secondary schools and above. One explanation for this might be gender differences in mathematical self-concept, which are the focus of the present study. Data from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) were used to examine whether young adults’ mathematical self-concept is dependent on gender. The Norwegian results were compared to findings in Canada, Italy, Switzerland, and USA. The ALL-data presented indicate that in all of these countries, females in general are less likely than males to state that they are good with numbers and calculations. The gender differences in mathematical self-concept were largest within Switzerland and Norway. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that gender influenced mathematical self-concept, even when controlled for numeracy skills. To our knowledge, this is the first time representative cross-country samples are used to explore the relationships between gender, country and young adult’s mathematical self-concept.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".