MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804882728 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n6p23

An Investigation into Senior High School Students’ Psychological Quality and Its Relationship with Their English Performance

2018· article· en· W2804882728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wen Jin, Yuewu Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Independence (probability theory)PersonalitySocial psychologyMathematics educationPsychological adaptation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychological quality is a stable, basic and derivative psychological character, and is a dynamic organization composed of four subs - systems of cognition, personality psychology, mental health and social adaptation. Foreign and domestic scholars have done plenty of researches on the relationship between the academic performance and several main sub-dimensions of psychological quality such as responsibility, methods, initiative and confidence. Based on the previous studies, the study aims to investigate the general situation of senior high school students’ psychological quality; How does English performance correlate with psychological quality and its eleven dimensions; What is the difference between high-proficient English learners and the low-proficient English learners in terms of the psychological quality and its eleven dimensions? The results show that the middle high school students have a relatively positive psychological quality; there is a positive and strong correlation between psychological quality and English performance. As for its eleven dimensions, the results show that there is a positively and strongly correlation between English performance and initiative, self-confidence, responsibility, self-control, methods, independence and persistence. There is a correlation between English performance and monitoring, frustration endurance and independence, which is not as strong as the above dimensions. And there is no correlation between English performance and thinking ability and innovation; there exist significantly difference between high-proficient and low-proficient English students in psychological quality, initiative, self-confidence, responsibility, self-control, methods, persistence, monitoring and frustration endurance. However,no difference has been found between high-proficient and low-proficient English students in independence, thinking ability and innovation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207