MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112418321 · doi:10.3390/ijerph17239116

Boredom Proneness and Self-Control as Unique Risk Factors in Achievement Settings

2020· article· en· W3112418321 on OpenAlexafffund
Jhotisha Mugon, James Boylan, James Danckert

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyFeelingTraitSelf-controlSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state of boredom arises when we have the desire to be engaged in goal pursuit, but for whatever reason we cannot fulfil that desire. Boredom proneness is characterized by both frequent and intense feelings of boredom and is an enduring individual difference trait associated with a raft of negative outcomes. There has been some work in educational settings, but relatively little is known about the consequences of boredom proneness for learning. Here we explored the unique contributions of boredom proneness, self-control and self-esteem to undergraduate self-reported higher grade point average (GPA). Within educational settings, prior research has shown self-control and self-esteem to be associated with better academic performance. In contrast, boredom proneness is associated with lower levels of self-control and self-esteem. Our analyses replicate those previous findings showing that self-control acts as a positive predictor of GPA. Importantly, we further demonstrated, for the first time, that boredom proneness has a unique contribution to GPA over and above the contribution of self-control, such that as boredom proneness increases, GPA decreases. We discuss potential mechanisms through which boredom proneness may influence academic performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207