Students With LD and Decision Making for After High School: Emotions and Basic Psychological Needs
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
Little is known about how grade 12 students with learning disabilities (LD) face the complex and emotional task of deciding what to do after high school. To expand on current research, we explored the experiences, emotions, and support of Canadian students with LD from the theoretical perspective of basic psychological needs (BPNs). We conducted a triangulation mixed-method study that included survey data and interviews. Participants were asked to identify their emotions, and if their BPNs of autonomy (e.g., feeling in control), competence (e.g., feeling capable), and relatedness (e.g., feeling connected to others) were satisfied or frustrated. Based on survey questions, participants indicated high satisfaction with their BPNs during decision-making and low levels of negative emotions. We used a deductive analysis to link participant interviews to BPNs and found greater satisfaction with these needs than frustration. Moreover, the mixed-method analysis integrating the results in a joint display uncovered that participants identified more positive emotions when their BPNs of autonomy and relatedness were satisfied, and more negative emotions when their BPNs of relatedness and competence were frustrated. We discuss the emotional experience of making decisions after high school. Limitations and future research directions 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) | 0.002 | 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