MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306631465 · doi:10.53967/cje-rce.v45i3.5293

Academic Procrastination in Undergraduate Students: Understanding the Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration and Academic Motivation

2022· article· en· W4306631465 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rylee Oram, Maria Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcrastinationPsychologyFrustrationSocial psychologyStructural equation modelingSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procrastination is particularly prevalent in the post-secondary student population, with prevalence rates ranging between 70–95%. Students have consistently cited motivation, or a lack thereof, as one of the main sources of their procrastination. One of the most prominent theories explaining motivation is self-determination theory (SDT). Despite the direct links between motivation and procrastination, procrastination has been scarcely examined through the lens of SDT. The current study examined the relationship between basic psychological need (BPN), satisfaction and frustration, academic motivation, and academic procrastination. A sample of 617 undergraduate students completed an online questionnaire about their university experience. Data were analyzed using mediational structural equation models. Results suggested that academic motivation significantly mediated the relationship between BPN satisfaction and procrastination, but not the relationship between BPN frustration and procrastination. These results demonstrate the importance of satisfying the BPN of undergraduate students, as it may increase their academic motivation and, subsequently, reduce their procrastination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207