Achievement goal profiles among adolescent males and females.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achievement goal theory has long been a dominant model in the study of student motivation. However, a relatively small number of researchers have investigated gender differences in achievement goals or have considered the possible role that social and extrinsic goals may play in student academic motivation. Adopting a person-centered multiple goals perspective based on personal investment theory, this longitudinal study investigated whether males and females shared similar goal profiles, and whether the predictors (facilitating conditions) and outcomes (learning processes, task perseverance, and future aspirations) of these profiles were equivalent across genders. Profiles were extracted from 8 types of academic goals, based on a large sample of Hong Kong high school students (N = 7,848). Findings revealed 5 distinctive profiles for both males and females. Although the relative size of these profiles differed across samples of male and female students, the results show that 4 of these profiles were mostly equivalent across genders. Predictors of membership into these profiles were also equivalent across genders, whereas their relative outcomes were specific to gender. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".