Motivation and Attitude of Students on Physics Subject in the Middle School in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to determine whether there is a relationship between motivation and attitudes of students towards physics subjects in high school. Method: The type of research used is quantitative descriptive with correlational design. The data used by researchers were in the form of questionnaires/motivational questionnaires and attitudes with a total of 54 statements for attitude questionnaires and 23 statements for motivational questionnaires using liker scale 5. Data Analysis: using descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings: the results of this study researchers get good results and enough attitudes towards physics investigation, adoption of scientific attitudes pleasure in learning physics, interested in participating in physics learning activities, believe that he has the ability of physics, and enjoy working on physics tasks good enough, this is in accordance with the analysis of the relationship that has been done, that there is a relationship between motivation and student attitudes toward physics subjects, with details, at level 1 the correlation coefficient is 0.318, then at level 2 is 0.862 and at level 3 is -0.56, at level 1 has a low positive relationship, level 2 has a strong positive relationship, while at level 3 has a moderate negative relationship.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".