MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306698124 · doi:10.24071/llt.v25i2.4432

EXPLORING THE LEVEL OF STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY IN SPEAKING CLASS

2022· article· en· W4306698124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLLT Journal A Journal on Language and Language Teaching · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralityDimension (graph theory)PsychologySelf-efficacyClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationSocial psychologyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring the level of the students’ self-efficacy toward their speaking ability is the grand design of this study. The participants of this study were 28 non-native students from the suburban area in West Borneo. Those students belong to the third semester of the speaking class. In collecting the data, they were given a questionnaire. An in-depth interview was also conducted with 3 prominent students to validate and triangulate the represented data in the questionnaire result. Adopting Bandura’s theory, the results of this study show that the students manifested slightly high self-efficacy in the magnitude dimension, slightly high self-efficacy in the generality dimension, and very high self-efficacy in the strength dimension. In addition, the in-depth interview affirms that the students’ level in magnitude is influenced by their educational background; the students’ level in generality is affected by their interests in their particular field, and the student's level of strength is determined by their strong belief.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.267 · 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