Learning outcomes as perceived enjoyment in studying accounting – personal & environmental factors
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
Accounting-majored students in their final year of university program understand that they still have a long journey of both work and rigorous studies before earning their professional accounting designation. Even though the literature examines various factors, such as accountants’ job status and lifestyle affecting students’ self-efficacy, we argue that the perceived and persistent intrinsic passion of studying accounting as enjoyment becomes an important expected outcome from a high level of self-efficacy. Using survey questionnaires, this study explores what and how qualities of personal and environmental factors influence students’ enjoyment to remain self-motivated. As expected, empirical results exhibit that some personal factors have larger positive impacts in shaping accounting students’ level of enjoyment. Also, there are systematic differences in certain environmental factors that influence students’ enjoyment of studying accounting between a North American small university and an Asian large university.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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