Social Support and Motivation in STEM Degree Students: Gender Differences in Relations with Burnout and Academic Success
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
Existing research underscores the importance of both social-environmental factors (e.g., social support) and psychological factors (e.g., motivation) as buffers against attrition, low performance, and psychological maladjustment in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degree programs. Female STEM students in particular contend with additional academic challenges that can hamper their motivation and performance. This study investigated the relations between social support (personal vs. academic) and well-being, persistence, and academic outcomes as mediated by self-determined motivation and moderated by gender. Structural equation modelling with 221 STEM undergraduates showed significant indirect paths between personal support and STEM career intentions via autonomous motivation. Multigroup analyses further showed male STEM students to benefit more from both personal and academic supports, as well as from greater autonomous motivation, with the academic risks of controlled motivation observed primarily for female STEM students. Implications for motivationally supportive teaching practices in STEM degree programs 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it