Navigating costs: Undergraduate students perceptions of incorporating the APA guidelines into their assignments
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
The publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) is widely used by undergraduate students across the country for academic writing. While instructors provide guidance on how to correctly implement the guidelines within the manual, many students continue to struggle with this task, often making significant errors in their writing. To explore the challenges students face in applying these guidelines, we adopted a motivational approach, examining the issue through the lens of Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT), with a particular focus on the perception of cost (i.e., why students may be reluctant to complete the task). One hundred and fifty undergraduate students completed our online survey. Through mixed-method analyses, we explored the multidimensional components of cost, as well as its contributions as a predictor of student burnout. Our results are discussed in terms of recommendations for supporting students’ use of APA guidelines, along with limitations and directions for future research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it