Critical Thinking Dispositions of Undergraduate College Students in A Comprehensive University of Mainland China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to assess the critical thinking dispositions of undergraduate college students in a comprehensive university of mainland China and examine the roles of gender and major in the subjects’ critical thinking dispositions. An adapted Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) was used to survey 534 undergraduate students. Statistics revealed that over 3/4 of the subjects were negative in their dispositions to think critically, and no more than 1/4 of them were positive. All the subscale mean scores were between 30-35, indicating an ambivalent attitude to critical thinking. Meanwhile, the subjects were stronger in systematicity, truth-seeking, and self-confidence than in analyticity, inquisitiveness, and cognitive maturity. Besides, males got significantly higher scores in overall critical thinking dispositions, truth-seeking, cognitive maturity, open-mindedness, and justice-orientedness, an added subscale in the Chinese version of CCTDI. Finally, science-engineering students achieved a non-significant higher overall mean score than non-science-engineering students. They also scored higher in seven out of the eight subscales, but the differences were only significant in open-mindedness and justice-orientedness.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".