MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899025761 · doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0094

Relations Between Trait Personality, Goal Orientation, and Adaptive Outcomes in High School Physical Education

2018· article· en· W2899025761 on OpenAlexaff
Ken R. Lodewyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching in Physical Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoal orientationPsychologyPhysical educationTraitPersonalityBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyGoal settingFuture orientationOrientation (vector space)Applied psychologySocial psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Personality traits such as honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (HEXACO) have been linked to numerous adaptive outcomes in academic, sport, and physical activity settings; yet little if any such research has been conducted with physical education (PE) students. The aim of this study was to investigate relations between the HEXACO trait personality dimensions and five noteworthy outcomes in PE, namely task and ego goal orientation, importance-value, intention to enroll, and grade. Method: Survey data were gathered from 316 ninth and tenth-grade PE students. Results: Personality collectively predicted each of the outcomes (p < .001). Conclusion: Students with certain personalities—particularly those lower in extraversion—might be more susceptible to some less favorable outcomes in secondary PE. To better differentiate instruction in PE, there may be some merit in increasing physical educator awareness of personality traits and how they might compromise some adaptive outcomes in PE.

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)0.004
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching in Physical EducationSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207