MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226139705 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12411

Motivations for social withdrawal and academic adjustment in emerging adulthood

2022· article· en· W4226139705 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia McVarnock, Leanna M. Closson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Substance Use and School Attendance
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyConscientiousnessSocial anxietySocial withdrawalAcademic achievementAnxietyMultilevel modelPersonalityClinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsSocial psychologyExtraversion and introversionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While social withdrawal in childhood is typically associated with lower academic functioning, little is known about how motivations for social withdrawal may be connected to academic adjustment in emerging adulthood. The purpose of the present study was to examine associations between social withdrawal motivations (i.e., shyness, avoidance and unsociability) and indices of academic adjustment, including academic achievement (i.e., grade point average [GPA]) and academic motivation (i.e., intrinsic value, self‐efficacy and test anxiety), while accounting for gender and conscientiousness. Participants were 623 emerging adults between the ages of 18 and 25 ( M age = 20.15, SD = 1.67; 79% female) who were currently attending university. Hierarchical regression results showed that shyness was negatively associated with intrinsic value and self‐efficacy. Whereas shyness was positively associated with test anxiety, avoidance was negatively associated with test anxiety. Social withdrawal motivations were not associated with GPA. The findings suggest that some motivations for social withdrawal play a role in university students’ academic motivation, but not their academic achievement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicYouth Substance Use and School AttendanceFrench-language works237,207