The role of playfulness in the leisure stress-coping process among emerging adults: an SEM analysis
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
A benefit of playfulness is facilitating stress coping, and leisure has been identified as a coping strategy. However, no research has examined whether playfulness facilitates using leisure to cope with stress. The process theory of stress coping shows that using leisure to cope with stress is a process involving not only coping strategies, but also emotional response and comprehensive coping outcomes. However, no study has used the process theory to examine the role of playfulness in the leisure stress-coping process. This study surveyed 195 university students about their psychological stress, playfulness, emotions and quality of life. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the data. Results suggest that being more playful leads university students to seek companionship through social leisure and to enhance mood through leisure pursuits but not use leisure to escape from stress. Results also support the process theory of stress coping by showing that personal factors like playfulness as well as emotional response and more comprehensive coping outcomes are important in the coping process.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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