MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531551975 · doi:10.1177/0261429416668872

Giftedness and academic success in college and university

2016· article· en· W2531551975 on OpenAlexaff
James D. A. Parker, Donald H. Saklofske, Kateryna V. Keefer

Bibliographic record

VenueGifted Education International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Postsecondary educationHigher educationAcademic achievementSecondary educationMathematics educationSample (material)Medical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the work on predicting academic success in postsecondary education has focused on the impact of various cognitive abilities, although in recent years there has been increased attention to the role played by emotional and social competency (also called emotional intelligence (EI)). Previous work on the link between EI and giftedness is reviewed, particularly factors connected to the successful transition to postsecondary education. Data are presented from a sample of 171 exceptionally high-achieving secondary students (high school grade-point average of 90% or better) who completed a measure of trait EI at the start of postsecondary studies and who had their academic progress tracked over the next 6 years. High-achieving secondary students who completed an undergraduate degree scored significantly higher on a number of EI dimensions compared to the secondary students who dropped out. Results are discussed in the context of the importance of EI in the successful transition from secondary to postsecondary education.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGifted Education InternationalSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207