MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604621664 · doi:10.1177/0829573517703239

Supporting Academic Engagement in Boys and Girls

2017· article· en· W2604621664 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabrielle Wilcox, Jocelyn McQuay, Anita Blackstaffe, Rosemary Perry, Penelope Hawe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyStudent engagementAnxietyIntervention (counseling)Academic achievementSocial anxietyDevelopmental psychologyScale (ratio)Social supportClinical psychologySocial psychologyPedagogyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how social support and anxiety influence academic engagement in boys and girls is important to ensure that we effectively promote academic engagement. This study examined the relationship between gender, social support, anxiety, and academic engagement in elementary and junior high school students. Students in Grades 5 to 9 ( N = 1,904) completed self-reports measuring academic engagement, anxiety, and perceived social support from family, friends, and school staff. Results indicated that girls were more likely to perceive social support and to score higher on the anxiety scale than boys were. Grade level was a significant predictor of academic engagement for boys but not for girls, while anxiety classification was a significant predictor of academic engagement for girls but not for boys. This study highlights the importance of understanding the multiple factors that influence academic engagement to provide targeted prevention and intervention strategies and how these factors differ for boys and girls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207