Motivation Differences Between Different Groups of International Business Students in Guangdong Communication Polytechnic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the motivations of 332 students from Guangdong Communication Polytechnic, conceptualizing the students’ motivations for studying international business. The students answered a motivation questionnaire with 30 Likert-type questions. This questionnaire was built to collect information about students’ motivations to study international business for international business teachers and researchers. The questionnaire was adopted from Glynn (2009). The grading of the questionnaire was reliable and related to the students’ preparation before entering the polytechnic, their grade point averages in international business courses, and their faith in the relevance of international business courses for their future occupations. The conceptualization of motivation for studying international business was divided into five aspects, including internal motivation and individual relevance, self-efficiency and judgement anxiety, independence, occupation motivation, and degree motivation (Glynn, 2009). The result of this study showed that in their final year, international business students achieved the best performance in internal motivation and individual relevance, self-efficiency, and independence for international business learning. Second-year students had the best extrinsic motivation. The freshmen reported the most anxiety in assessments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".