Development of a self-report measure of GPS uses and its relationship with environmental knowledge and self-efficacy and pleasure in exploring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widely utilized Global Positioning System (GPS) plays a crucial role in everyday navigation. The literature has predominantly focused on GPS use for reaching destinations rather than exploring its various strategic applications and relations with individual factors. The current paper is intended to develop a GPS Uses Scale assessing a variety of GPS uses for wayfinding and other GPS uses (Study 1). We also examine whether GPS uses are related to gender, age, self-efficacy and pleasure in exploring, dependence on GPS devices, and environment knowledge (Study 2). In Study 1, 365 participants completed the new GPS Uses Scale and the McGill GPS questionnaire, for assessing validity. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a structure as five-level factors, good reliability, and validity. In Study 2, 200 participants completed the GPS Uses Scale, self-efficacy and pleasure in exploring scale, GPS dependence scale, and a sketch map task after learning a virtual city from a video. Results from the linear model showed that those who use GPS for strategic purposes reported higher self-efficacy and pleasure in exploring as well as dependence on GPS. Moreover, those who use GPS for orientation purposes reported higher dependency on GPS and had higher scores on the map task (environment knowledge). Men were less likely to use GPS for orientation. The present paper outlines the importance of assessing the various uses of GPS, suggesting self-efficacy and dependence on GPS, and contributes to its strategic use.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".