Pupils’ Classroom Behavior and Academic Performance
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
Pupils behavior in the classroom today takes various forms of behavior depending on the social and cultural context. This study focused on the pupils perception of the classroom behavior: Physical Aggression, Verbal Expression, Non-Verbal Communication, Disrespecting Teacher, and Peer Pressure, the pupils academic performance for the second quarter, and the relationship between pupils classroom behavior and academic performance for the School Year 2022-2023. This study was conducted among the one-hundred-fifty (150) Grade V pupils in schools under South 1 District, Division of Gingoog City. This study used an adapted questionnaire from Lampasaran (2018). The researcher utilized the descriptive–correlational research. Statistical analysis like mean, standard deviation, and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient were employed to analyze the gathered data.The results revealed that overall pupils perception of classroom behavior was sometimes level. Non-verbal communication was rated the highest. Majority of the Pupils academic performance was at a fairly satisfactory level. Pupils classroom behavior has a significant impact on academic performance except for physical aggression. Academic performance has a fairly satisfactory level which means that pupils should improve their academic performance for better results The researcher recommends that the school, teachers, and parents may help each other in improving pupils positive behavior and academic performance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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