On the Study of the Relationship of the Personality About Locus of Control, Coping Style and Work Management of the Headmasters in Primary and Middle Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship study of the Personality about Locus of Control, coping style and work engagement of the headmasters in primary and middle schools is the basis of further promoting the work engagement of the primary and middle schools headmasters. Method: Do questionnaire surveys on 220 primary and middle schools headmasters by using the Personality about Locus of Control form, questionnaire on coping style and work engagement form. Result: There are distinct differences on locus of control personality between Han and Tibet headmasters; there are distinct differences on the coping styles of the primary and middle schools headmasters in different nationalities and different ages; the two dimensions of the locus of control and coping style and every dimension of the work engagement and the total scores are distinctively related to each other (P <.05); through the analysis of the multiple stepwise regressions, we can find that the predictive power of two factors namely the coping style and the locus of control on the work engagement is up to 16.4%. If the primary and middle schools headmasters can adopt the active pattern of coping style and internal control personality while facing difficulties and problems in work contribute more to work engagement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".