MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389206533 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v14n1p23

Math Anxiety, Achievement and Perceptions of Same-Ethnic Peers in Math Class

2023· article· en· W4389206533 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piper J. Harris, Sandra Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsEthnic groupMathematical anxietyPsychologyFeelingAnxietyClass (philosophy)PerceptionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using multiple linear regression analysis, this research explores racially and ethnically diverse students’ feelings of math anxiety, how these beliefs shape their achievement in the subject, and whether students’ math anxiety and performance in mathematics vary based on students’ gender, race/ethnicity, and math level. Moreover, this study investigated the potential protective functions of perceiving a high proportion of same-ethnic peers in math class for buffering against the detrimental effects of high math anxiety on achievement. Results showed that when African American students reported a high level of math anxiety, their math grades were lower when they also perceived there to be a high proportion of same-ethnic peers in their math course compared to White students with similar levels of math anxiety and perceptions of same-ethnic peers. These results suggest that the effects of classroom same-ethnic representation for students’ academic outcomes are more nuanced than labeling it as a “protective” factor. Other contextual factors may influence the relationship between math anxiety, perceived same-ethnic representation in math class, and achievement and should be explored in future research.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207