MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799608671 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000087.1

Relations between Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Motivation, and Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in Medical Residents: A cross-sectional Study

2018· article· en· W2799608671 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fareeda Mukhtar, Krista R. Muis, Michelle Elizov

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationPsychologyScheduleSelf-determination theoryRelation (database)Intrinsic motivationApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Residents in the medical field work to fulfil their clinical duties and study to pass exams at the same time. Thus, they need to continuously learn and acquire knowledge in a self-regulated manner that accommodates their busy work schedule. The importance of self-regulated learning (SRL) and its relation to motivation is widely recognized in educational literature, yet it is still not sufficiently explored in medical education literature. The relationship between self-regulated learning (SRL) and motivation has not been sufficiently explored among medical residents. A total of 160 residents from different medical departments at McGill University were asked to complete a questionnaire about their psychological needs satisfaction, motivation to learn, and use of SRL strategies. Our results showed that residents who are more intrinsically motivated reported more utilization of SRL strategies. Results are discussed in terms of their impact on medical education practice as well as their theoretical implications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedEdPublishSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207