Self-Determination Theory — I Choose You!
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.859
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.854
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.147 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
We use a Pokémon allegory to illustrate that current approaches to applying Self-Determination Theory (SDT) are reinforcing bad practice. SDT is to motivation research in HCI what Pikachu is to Ash in the Pokémon animated series: important, reliable, and powerful. However, just like Pikachu has its weaknesses (i.e., ground-type Pokémon) and should not be sent into every single battle, SDT is not the right tool for every single research question. While motivation should be seen as a function of situation and person [8, 13], SDT does not account for interindividual differences in need strength. We note that important aspects of motivation as a construct (e.g., arousal, frustration, satiation) are currently neglected in HCI and advocate for more precision with the terminology (e.g., distinguishing motivation from volition, goals, abilities, and personality). Deepening our understanding of motivation can provide valuable insights to researchers in games and play. We also suggest alternative theories of motivation which can be adopted by games and play research.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Topic
- Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- University of Saskatchewan
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyVolition (linguistics)Intrinsic motivationSelf-determination theoryTerminologyConstruct (python library)Cognitive psychologyGoal theoryMotivation theorySocial psychologyComputer scienceAutonomy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes