MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108272151 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v2n2p170

Effects of Self Managing Life Crisis Based on the Oriental towards Life Crisis and Well-being of Married Women

2010· article· en· W2108272151 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ungsinun Intarakamhang, Tasana Thongpukdee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Higher Education CommissionThailand Research Fund
KeywordsCoping (psychology)PsychologyPerceptionNeuroticismMultivariate analysis of varianceClinical psychologySocial supportDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonalityStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objectives were: 1) to study the efficiency of Managing Life Crisis Program (MLCP) based on theoriental approach towards the self-perception of life crisis, 2) to investigate an interaction between psycho-socialcharacteristics (of neuroticism, self control and social support) and MLCP, and 3) to study the variablespredicting the well-being. Subjects, who scored high on self perception of life crisis, were mothers of sixthgraders. Using simple random sampling, 32 participants were selected as the experimental group and 40 as thecontrol group. Data was analyzed by MANOVA statistics and multiple regression. The results indicated thatafter training the experimental group who trained with MLCP, scored lower on the total perception of life crisis,emotion oriented coping, and adapting. These scores were statistically significant different at 0.05 level from thecontrol group. No interaction was observed among psycho-social characteristics and training program towardsthe self- perception of life crisis. Finally adapting, emotion oriented coping, and stress predicted the well-beingof participants at 41.1%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207