Student Attention and Distraction in Community College
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attention span of students and their ability to shut out distractions are learning conditions that concern educators more than ever before. Faculty at a community college assessed the learning conditions of students related to attention and distraction. Students self-administered an online Selective Attention Poll consisting of 20 multiple-choice items. The 239 culturally-diverse volunteers were 161 females and 78 males. Results indicated that most students believe they can get more work done in less time by multitasking, and consider this practice as necessary to meet the demands of college. Teachers could help students improve achievement by arranging innovative cooperative learning practices and developmental reading procedures. The majority of students declared their home as the most difficult place to study. Parents should provide a quiet environment and recognize student need for continued emotional support in early adulthood. The challenges for community college faculty are to help students improve study habits so they become more able to concentrate on assignments, read in-depth, value reflective thinking, diminish distractions, and build skills to work in groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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