MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411445092 · doi:10.7202/1118377ar

Study aimed at identifying factors with the potential to reduce the disparities in mathematics anxiety observed between 15-year-old French-speaking boys and girls in Quebec, based on an analysis of PISA data from 2003 and 2012

2023· article· en· W4411445092 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patricia Vohl, Nathalie Loye

Bibliographic record

VenueMesure et évaluation en éducation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyValue (mathematics)Mathematical anxietyClinical psychologyMathematicsPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previous study (Vohl & Loye, 2023) showed that, on average, 15-year-old French-speaking Quebec girls are more anxious about mathematics than French-speaking Quebec boys across the performance continuum. The results also showed that performances in mathematics and mathematics anxiety are two negatively correlated phenomena. This paper aims to identify factors that could explain the differences in mathematics anxiety observed between girls and boys and that may have the potential to reduce the observed differences. The Pekrun’s control-value model for achievement emotions (2006) was used to verify whether differences in self-concept, intrinsic value, and utility value observed between girls and boys completely explain the differences in mathematical anxiety. The results in self-concept explain nearly 70% of the differences in mathematics anxiety observed among francophone students in Quebec.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesure et évaluation en éducationSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207