MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942725897 · doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1587297

Emotion Regulation in Achievement Situations: An Integrated Model

2019· article· en· W2942725897 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychologist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyValue (mathematics)Control (management)Process (computing)Domain (mathematical analysis)Object (grammar)Cognitive psychologyPoint (geometry)Social psychologyAcademic achievementDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achievement emotions are critical because of their impact on success and failure in important domains such as learning. These emotions may be modified via emotion regulation (ER). The dominant process model of ER (PMER) proposed by J. Gross, however, provides a domain-general account of ER strategies and has not had substantial contact with theories of achievement emotions such as R. Pekrun’s control-value theory (CVT) and the academic achievement literature. Moreover, ER has not been a focal point of major theories related to achievement emotions, such as CVT. We propose an integrated model of ER in achievement situations (ERAS) that integrates propositions about the generation of emotions from CVT with propositions about how emotions are regulated and types of ER strategies from PMER. The ERAS model also offers new propositions regarding how different achievement situations, object foci, and time frames, as well as discrete emotions with different appraisal patterns, impact ER strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.342 · 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