Self-regulated learning in research with gifted learners
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue presents a sample of modern work on self-regulated learning (SRL) among high ability and gifted students. It includes diverse views about the construct per se, and gifted students’ and their teachers’ accounts about SRL and factors they believe moderate it. Zeidner and Stroeger (this issue) set the stage with a sketch of an extensive literature about SRL that has deep roots in North American educational philosophy and practice. The menu of work here is fundamentally well done and, in varying ways and degrees, slightly provocative.A trite observation would be these articles don’t fully represent the multiple facets and complex articulation among them comprising SRL, especially given relatively less research with participants identified as academically talented or gifted. In this situation, I would be pedantic to point out such-and-such is omitted or this-or-that is underrepresented. Rather, using admittedly using idiosyncratic standards, I select a few matters for discussion and, hopefully, constructive critique. Other commentators would likely apply different filters.Abbreviation SRL = Self-regulated learning
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it