An Investigation into Senior High School Students’ Psychological Quality and Its Relationship with Their English Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".