An Investigation into the Self-handicapping Behaviors of Undergraduates in Terms of Academic Procrastination, the Locus of Control and Academic Success
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 aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-handicapping, academic procrastination, the locus of control and academic success. The aim was also to determine whether these variables predicted self-handicapping behavior. The population of the study consisted of 263 undergraduates studying in different departments of the Faculty of Education at Uluda? University. The Self-Handicapping Scale (Ak?n, 2012), Academic Procrastination Scale (Çak?c?, 2003), and Locus of Control Scale (Da?, 1991) were used as data collection tools. Data was analyzed via Pearson correlation analysis and multi linear regression. As a result of the correlation analyses, a positively significant relationship was determined between self-handicapping, the external locus of control and academic procrastination. As a result of the regression analysis, it was concluded that academic procrastination, the locus of control and academic success predicted self-handicapping in terms of their explanation rates, respectively. Educators and psychological counselors discussed this issue and they made suggestions in line with the findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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