Teacher ratings and adolescent students’ perceived social behaviours and gender-role orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional study explores relationships among teachers’ ratings of students’ social behaviours and perceived competencies and gender-role orientations. Social behaviours, self-competencies, and gender-role orientations of 295 Canadian students (118 boys, 177 girls) were assessed by teachers’ ratings and students’ self-report questionnaires. Results showed significant and consistent associations between teachers’ perceptions of students’ social behaviours and adolescents’ self-perceptions of behavioural conduct. Positive correlations were found between teachers’ ratings of prosocial behaviours and gender-feminine orientation, and between teachers’ ratings of aggression and gender-masculine orientation. Gender differences were found as teachers scored girls higher in prosocial behaviours and boys higher in relational and physical aggression. Boys perceived themselves higher in self-worth, physical appearance, and masculinity, where girls rated themselves higher in femininity and behavioural conduct. These findings highlight the reciprocal nature of students’ and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes and suggests the need for a compassionate, inclusive, and gender-sensitive school climate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".