MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391277222 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v14n1p93

Reciprocal Path Model of Autonomous Motivation and Motivational Regulation: Socially Shared Regulation in Intellectual Group Activities

2024· article· en· W4391277222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takamichi Ito, Takatoyo Umemoto, Motoyuki Nakaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsReciprocalPsychologySocial psychologyGroup (periodic table)Path (computing)Developmental psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Computer scienceMathematicsStatisticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self- and social regulation are widely expected to increase autonomous motivation; however, few empirical studies have examined the reciprocal influences of autonomous motivation and motivational regulation. This study examined the reciprocal path model between autonomous motivation and three modes of motivational regulation (self-, co-, and socially shared regulation) in intellectual group activities by comparing university students with working adults. The participants were 181 university students and 295 working adults who completed an online questionnaire consisting of psychological measurements. With respect to autonomous motivation and the three modes of motivational regulation, a bidirectional model of university students and working adults was established and statistically analyzed on the basis of two time points of data, one month apart (T1 and T2). The hypothesized path model had a good fit through a multi-group structural equation modeling analysis. Autonomous motivation at T1 positively predicted socially shared regulation, co-regulation, and self-regulation at T2, one month later, for both groups. However, the three modes of regulation did not positively or significantly predict autonomous motivation in either group. Considering the reciprocal influences of autonomous motivation and motivational regulation, we discuss the necessity of implementing these practices in universities and workplaces.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207