MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199002152 · doi:10.5539/hes.v11n4p7

Using PLS-SEM to Examine the Structure of First-year University Students’ Mathematics-related Beliefs

2021· article· en· W3199002152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruixuan Ji, Xiaoyao Yue, Xu Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationContext (archaeology)PsychologyPerceptionLikert scalePersistence (discontinuity)MultimethodologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many research indicated that more and more students choose to drop out of mathematics-related subjects during university study, especially in the western context. Besides the difficulty of mathematics content, first-year university students also face issues of the transition period. Identifying the impact of first-year university students' belief factors on their persistence in mathematics study needed further research. This study served as a pilot study; it structured the framework of first-year university students’ mathematics-related beliefs in relation to students’ persistence on the further mathematics study. A two-stage approach of using PLS-SEM to assessing the conceptual framework was introduced in detail. The relationships of dimensions of students’ epistemological beliefs about mathematics, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategies and perceptions about learning environment were assessed. This study provides the feasibility for future follow-up studies to examine mathematics-related beliefs and intentions to continue learning among university students on a larger scale.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207