MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W25023227 · doi:10.29173/slw6794

Relationships that Foster Intrinsic Motivation for Information Seeking

2007· article· en· W25023227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sherry R. Crow

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNaturalistic observationInformation seekingIntrinsic motivationSocial psychologyMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basedon a study conducted in the fall of 2008, this article highlights relational aspects of the experiences of upper elementary (age 10) children identified asintrinsically motivated for information seeking. Research for the study was conducted using an inductive naturalistic approach in order to address the following question, "What are the experiences in the lives of upper elementary school children that foster an intrinsic motivation to seek information?" The Self-determination Theory provided the basis forthe theoretical framework. Participants were selected from a pool of fifth graders from three diverse schools within a single communityin the USA. Initially, the children were chosen based on the results of a survey especially developed for the study. Interviews and a drawing activity were used to collect the data that served as the foundationfor analysis. Findings featured in this article arethe students' affinity for play, point-of-passion experiences, "anchor" relationships, and indication by students that working in a group was a component of their favorite information seeking episodes. Importance of relationships to students of particular cultures is also discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207