MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918084512 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n1p36

Positive Cognition and Timing of Self-Administered App for Test-Taking Anxiety

2019· article· en· W2918084512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rocio E. Hernandez, Mary Lou de Leon Siantz, Christiana Drake, Kupiri Ackerman-Barger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest anxietyTest (biology)AnxietyDesensitization (medicine)CognitionEye movement desensitization and reprocessingClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A self-administered application was designed to reduce anxiety using a modified Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR) model. The purpose of this study was to calibrate the EMDR web application for timing and desired self-belief to reduce test taking anxiety prior to an academic exam. Five classrooms of 9th grade students from a convenience sample (N=132) were randomly assigned to different timing groups of EMDR exposure (30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 5 minutes). One minute was identified as the ideal time for exposure. “I got this” was selected from 5 choices (I’m good enough; I’m smart enough; I can do this; I got this; and I’m ok) and a self-reported other as the desired self-belief phrase before an examination as well as in daily life. This information was used to test the application for efficacy before an algebra examination in the next phase of research and can be applied both in a group classroom setting and individually.

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)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207