MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030049238

Metacomprensión y desarrollo cognitivo en la autorregulación del aprendizaje del adolescente

2024· article· en· W7030049238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionCognitionTask (project management)Process (computing)PopulationCognitive developmentTask analysisCognitive strategyPlan (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mental processes are fundamental in the learning of adolescents, with the development of cognition and metacognition being relevant to improve self-regulation, specifically in the metacomprehensive modality and its components: Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Conditional Knowledge. Objective: To analyze the mental processes that enable metacomprehension in the cognitive development of adolescents in educational institutions in Colombia. Methodology: Quantitative approach with a non-experimental cross-sectional design and correlational scope. The MAI –Metacognitive Skills Inventory– and MoCA –Montreal Cognitive Assessment– instruments were applied to a population of 407 high school students from rural and urban areas in different regions of Colombia. Results: The main findings regarding metacomprehension and cognitive development were reflected in the majority of students’ ability to evaluate their learning process using different metacognitive strategies. Likewise, they plan their academic activities, organize their study time, enabling them to solve problems, prioritize goals, and select the best tools; they know how to monitor their learning processes during task development and adjust them to improve performance. Conclusions: Metacognition, in its metacomprehensive modality, is one of the most relevant processes in Learning Self-Regulation, allowing adolescents to be aware of how and to what extent they learn, enabling the execution of processes such as planning, monitoring, control, and self-evaluation of learning, which are closely related to the variable of cognitive development of attention and its subprocesses: orientation, concentration, and flexibility.

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)0.003
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyFrench-language works237,207