Subjective Experiences in Activity Involvement and Perceptions of Growth in a Sample of First-Year Female University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined subjective experiences in activities and perceptions of growth in a sample of first-year female university students (N = 196; age range = 17 to 19 years old, M = 18.48, SD = 0.53; the most common ethnic affiliations were British Isles, 51% of respondents, Canadian, 34%, French, 14%, and German, 8%). Students described 4 activities, rated their subjective experiences in each activity on 8 dimensions, and evaluated the impact of their involvement using scales created by the authors for the present study. Subjective experiences were generally positive across dimensions for 7 activity categories. For each activity type, 5 dimensions of subjective experience (enjoyment, competence, importance, commitment, control) loaded onto a "psychological engagement" factor. Positive experiences in activities were associated with more positive perceptions of activity-related growth. Differences between dimensions of subjective experiences, activity types, and domains of growth are explored, as well as implications for student affairs professionals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".