Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis.
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.792
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.124 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Self-determination theory proposes a multidimensional representation of motivation comprised of several factors said to fall along a continuum of relative autonomy. The current meta-analysis examined the relationships between these motivation factors in order to demonstrate how reliably they conformed to a predictable continuum-like pattern. Based on data from 486 samples representing over 205,000 participants who completed 1 of 13 validated motivation scales, the results largely supported a continuum-like structure of motivation and indicate that self-determination is central in explaining human motivation. Further examination of heterogeneity indicated that while regulations were predictably ordered across domains and scales, the exact distance between subscales varied across samples in a way that was not explainable by a set of moderators. Results did not support the inclusion of integrated regulation or the 3 subscales of intrinsic motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation to know, to experience stimulation, and to achieve) due to excessively high interfactor correlations and overlapping confidence intervals. Recommendations for scale refinements and the scoring of motivation are provided. (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.
The record
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Topic
- Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- Université Laval
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsycINFOPsychologySelf-determination theoryMeta-analysisAutonomyIntrinsic motivationSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMEDLINE
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes