MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080047073 · doi:10.1037/h0087190

Gender differences in perceptions of stressors and utilization of social support among university students.

2003· article· en· W2080047073 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Arla L. Day, Holly A. Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStressorSocial supportPerceptionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meme si plusieurs chercheurs ont demontre que le soutien social est un mecanisme d'adaptation efficace pour faire face au stress, tres peu de recherches se sont penchees sur les differences entre les sexes en ce qui a trait au stress percu et au recours au soutien social. Dans la presente etude, 186 etudiants du premier cycle d'une universite des Maritimes ont note la nature stressante percue de cinq scenarios et ont identifie le type et la source de soutien social vers lesquels ils se tourneraient pour faire face a chacune des situations. Comparativement aux hommes, les femmes ont percu trois des cinq scenarios comme etant considerablement plus stressants. Les femmes, beaucoup plus que les hommes, ont indique qu'elles chercheraient du soutien de la part de leur partenaire ou d'amis. Les femmes ont egalement rapporte qu'elle chercheraient un soutien affectif a un niveau plus eleve que ne l'ont indique les hommes. Cependant, lorsque la nature stressante percue des scenarios etait determinee, certaines differences entre les sexes quant aux sources et aux types de soutien disparaissaient.

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)0.005
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations266
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207