MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309973188 · doi:10.35542/osf.io/rg4hd

Investigating the relationship between statistics anxiety and attitudes towards statistics in three countries

2022· preprint· en· W4309973188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fernando Marmolejo‐Ramos, Florence Gabriel, Pamela Kariuki, Ana María Ruiz‐Ruano García, Rebecca Marrone, Andrew Miles, Nicholas Fewster–Young, Malgorzata Wiktoria Korolkiewicz, Jorge López Puga

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsSummary statisticsAnxietyStatistics educationPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical literacy is a pressing need in modern society, but statistical learning is often inhibited by anxiety towards statistics. This study examines how statistics anxiety is related to other dimensions of students’ attitudes towards statistics, how these interrelations predict statistics anxiety, and how these dimensions change following introductory statistics instruction. Using data from Spain, Canada, and Australia, this study finds that anxiety is negatively related to security-confidence and positively related to motivation, and that the structure of these relationships is consistent across countries as well as before and after statistics instruction. Further, this structure predicts how these dimensions change following statistics training: by the end of an introductory statistics course, students report higher security-confidence and pleasantness but lower anxiety. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for statistics instruction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207