The Frequency of Emotions and Emotion Variability in Self-regulated Learning: What Matters to Task Performance?
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
Emotion variability and its relationship to performance is an underexplored area of research both inside and outside the realm of medical education. We address this gap by examining the relative importance of the frequency of emotions and emotion variability that occurred in specific phases of self-regulated learning (SRL) in predicting students’ performance. Specifically, 23 medical students were recruited to complete the task of diagnosing a virtual patient in a hospital-simulated environment. Students’ facial expressions were video-recorded and were classified into basic emotions. We calculated the frequency of emotions and emotion variability at each SRL phase: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. Findings revealed that both the frequency of emotions and emotion variability influenced clinical reasoning performance, but they functioned differently in different SRL phases. Moreover, emotion variability negatively predicted performance regardless of which SRL phases it was tied to. This study helps shift the focus of research from the effect of emotions on performance to the joint effect of emotion and emotion variability, which has the potential to address the inconsistency in emotion-related research findings. Although we situate the study in the context of clinical reasoning, findings from this research inform the research of emotion in learning and instruction for other domains. Furthermore, this study lays the foundation for future advances in emotion-related study designs since the introduction of emotion variability leaves many questions unanswered and shows promise for new research directions.
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 | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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