Exploring differences in psychological well-being and self-regulated learning in university student success
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
Worldwide, there are increasing concerns about postsecondary students’ mental health and how student success is implicated. Previous research has established psychological well-being and self-regulated learning are important components of student success, however, there is a paucity of research examining the interplay between these factors during a semester-long course. In this study, 118 students in a learning-to-learn elective university course completed nine weekly online planning and reflection tools. Students planned for a study session, completed an academic engagement and a psychological well-being measure, then reflected on a challenge faced and described the strategy chosen to overcome that challenge. Findings revealed (a) students who reported always attaining their goals also reported higher overall psychological well-being, and (b) within-person patterns of psychological well-being and academic engagement over time may affect regulatory responses to challenge or vice versa. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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