The Cognitive Growth Process and Knowledge Acquisition among Scientific and Humanitarian Majors at Qassim University in Light of Some Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to examine the learning and cognitive growth factors as two correlated concepts that transfer knowledge from its primitive state to a final stable state that reflects in successful activities adults are able to perform. The difference between weak and fluctuating performance at the beginning of the learning and cognitive growth exists. To find the difference the current study attempted to answer the following questions: (a) What is the level of knowledge acquisition among the students of Qassim University? (b) Are there significant differences at (α=0.05) between means of participants responses on the knowledge acquisition test attributed to the type of the major (scientific or humanitarian), academic level (third or seventh academic) and their interaction? The author selected (240) female participant by the simple random sampling method from the third and seventh academic levels in both majors scientific and humanitarian. To achieve the goals of the study the author constructed a test to measure knowledge acquisition. The first question means results range between (3.11-3.50), the mental processes ranked first and its mean scored (3.50) degrees, symbolic systems ranked last, and its mean scored (3.11) degrees. The overall mean of the test scored (3.30) degrees. The second question results illustrated significant differences at (α=0.05) attributed to the academic level, f-value scored (735.554) and a significance of (0.000) in favor of the seventh academic level. Significant differences at (α=0.05) attributed to major appeared, f-value scored (3411.658) and a significance of (0.000), in favor of the scientific majors. The impact of the interaction between the major and academic level differences proved to be significant at (α=0.05).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".