Comparing the Self-regulation of Grade 9th Students with Different Personalities and Studying in Schools of Different Sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to study and compare the self-regulation of grade 9th students with different personality types and who study in schools of different sizes. The sample group used in this study consisted of 860 students from Sisaket province, Thailand, who were randomly selected through a multi-stage random sampling method. Of these, 185 students had an extroverted personality type, while 675 had an introverted personality type, and they were studying in special large schools (216 students), large schools (160 students), medium-sized schools (302 students), and small schools (182 students). The research tool used was a self-regulation assessment questionnaire, which is a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire with 9 questions, having an internal consistency (IOC) ranging from 0.60 to 1.00, item total correlation ranging from 0.62 to 0.82, and reliability of 0.93. The data was analyzed using statistical techniques such as mean, standard deviation (S.D.), Two-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni. The research findings revealed that: 1) there was no interaction between personality type and school size in relation to self-regulation, 2) grade 9th students with different personality types (extroverted vs. introverted) showed statistically significant differences in self-regulation, with introverted students having higher levels of self-regulation than extroverted students, and 3) grade 9th students who studied in schools of different sizes (special large, large, medium, and small) showed significant differences in self-regulation.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".