MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591356431 · doi:10.1002/cjas.1429

The effect of error orientation, motivation to learn, and social support on training transfer intentions: A moderated mediation model

2017· article· en· W2591356431 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin Lauzier, Geneviève Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisMontfort Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMediationAgency (philosophy)Transfer of trainingSocial psychologyTransfer of learningOrientation (vector space)Motivation to learnTraining (meteorology)Government (linguistics)Mathematics educationCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aims to assess whether trainees’ errors orientation can influence their motivation to learn and their intention to transfer training. Data were collected from 275 trainees participating in a corporate training program offered by a Canadian government agency. Results show that the concept of learning by error positively influences trainees’ levels of motivation and their intention to transfer learning. Results also confirm the mediating role of motivation between the concept of learning by error and the intention of transferring learning. Finally, results confirm the moderating role of social support on the relationship between motivation to learn and the intention to transfer learning. Practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed. Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207