What’s cost got to do with it? Cost belief trajectories of undergraduate computer science students
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
Students want to learn computer science due to its usefulness for future careers, however they often meet challenges in introductory courses. In the increasingly digital world, it is important to understand some important psychological consequences of such challenges: perceived costs of pursuing computer science. This study thus investigated semester-long trajectories of four cost perceptions (effort, opportunity, psychological, and emotional) and their relations to achievement, major intentions, and career intentions (N = 831). All cost beliefs showed average increases, although with nuanced differences in levels and slopes, and the four costs differentially predicted student outcomes. Interestingly, the intercept of psychological cost negatively predicted final course grades while positively predicting major and career intentions. Women reported steeper increases in cost perceptions compared to men. The findings highlight the differential functioning of cost perceptions, with implications for the importance of targeting different aspects of cost perceptions to mitigate students’ barriers to success in computer science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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