MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906290107 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/2j5ns

Multilevel Analysis of Academic Goals

2022· other· en· W6906290107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)Exploratory factor analysisConfirmatory factor analysisMultilevel modelPoint (geometry)Scale (ratio)Field (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Metacognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a literature research, we found plenty of different goal characteristics. However, these variables on which goals vary, which we call goal dimensions (Austin & Vancouver, 1996), were not measured with comparable items across the literature. Hence, we developed a comprehensive measure of goals by first extracting "common" goal dimensions (being measured in at least 10 publications and having found at least 10 items in the literature review). We then conducted a study asking participants 2-3 items from each common goal dimension and conducted an exploratory factor analysis resulting in 9 factors (which we named: Expectancy, Progress, Enjoyment, Support, Value, External Motivation, Demand, inter-goal Facilitation, & Commitment) with 3 items each. Then, we confirmed the factor structure by another study and confirmatory factor analysis. This resulted in a goal dimension questionnaire. Now, we want to validate this instrument by a field study. In this study we will ask students from the University of Siegen about their performance in an academic goal, i.e. a course exam. Recruitment will be done at the university campus where participants will be introduced to the longitudinal study and the first questionnaire battery. This includes the goal dimension questionnaire as well as instruments asking for the following constructs: Satisfaction with life, Scale of positive and negative experiences, Big-5 XS, Big-5 conscientiousness, trait Self-control, and Metacognition in Self-control. The second measurement time point is 7 days before the exam, the third point one day after the exam and the last time point 6 weeks after the exam. We want to predict the goal dimension "progress" and well-being by the remaining goal dimensions. We want to analyse prevalent variance according to the levels: 1) variance of goals across time, 2) variance between goals and 3) variance in goals between persons and we want to test the reliability of goal dimension variance found by our new year resolution study.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207