MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400038853 · doi:10.32388/3i5wjy

Review of: "Mattering and Satisfaction With Life: Gender and Age Differences Among Kenyan Secondary School Students"

2024· peer-review· en· W4400038853 on OpenAlexaff
Hanan E. Badr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaPsychologyLife satisfactionDevelopmental psychologyDemographySociologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the abstract, what is M? It seems to be the mean of students' age.But in scientific work, information should be clear and never depend on guessing.Please make it clear: "The mean age of students was 17.4 years." 2. The used tools (The General Mattering Scale and Students' Life Satisfaction Scale): Were the tools standardized in Kenya before this study?A reference for this standardization should be added to the used tools.3. Page 4: The Students' Life Satisfaction Scale: The score range should be between 7-42, as described by the authors.The mean of this scale is 3.4, as shown in Table 1.More clarification about the way of calculating the score is required, although the authors mentioned "The items were averaged into a global measure of satisfaction with life."More details should be added for clarification about the scale calculation.4. Page 4: Data analysis and results.The authors did not mention what statistical package was used for data analysisand what the level of significance and confidence interval were.This information is very important to be added.5. Page 6: All the p-values in the text of Table 2 are not matching with the table values.For example, the second line (r =.28, p <.05), although the table shows 0.28**, which corresponds to p<0.01.Moreover, there are many p-values in the text of the same Table 2 with p<0.001, although the table footnote illustrates that p<0.05 or p<0.01.How did the authors reach the p<0.001?Please revise the writing of the table and make it match with the table values and the table footnote.6. Page 7: Table 3 shows asterisks without any footnote to explain the meaning of them.Also, in the same table, change B to β in Model 2 and double-check the text writing to match with the table contents.7. Page 8: Table 3 needs to be revised with its text.There are values with 3 asterisks without any footnote to clarify their meaning.Also, double-check the values of the explanation of the significant change in satisfaction with school life according to the change in age and mattering.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.016

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207