MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386584469 · doi:10.1080/28324765.2023.2255040

Autonomy support for the academic goal pursuit and subjective well-being of students with disabilities

2023· article· en· W4386584469 on OpenAlexafffund
Élodie C. Audet, Pascale Dubois, Shelby L. Levine, Richard Koestner

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlourishingAutonomyPsychologyCompetence (human resources)FeelingSelf-determination theoryWell-beingSocial psychologyGoal pursuitSubjective well-beingActive listeningApplied psychologyHappinessPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students with disabilities often face greater challenges flourishing in postsecondary academic settings and achieving academic goals than their peers. Over an academic semester, 234 university students with registered disabilities (75.60% female, Mage = 22.30) were recruited to participate in a three-wave, longitudinal study. The present research utilized a Self-Determination Theory framework to examine how perceiving autonomy support (i.e., listening, providing choices and options) from close others related to psychological need satisfaction (i.e., feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness), progress on academic goals, and subjective well-being. Specifically, the results suggest that autonomy support was significantly related to psychological need satisfaction, goal progress, and subjective well-being. Results also suggest the relation of autonomy support to subjective well-being was mediated by psychological need satisfaction and goal progress. The findings have broader implications regarding the academic success and well-being of students with disabilities and aid in understanding how close others can provide meaningful support despite the difficulties encountered. Practical ramifications and directions for future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Mental HealthSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207