Scores of Brunei Lower Secondary School Students on Emotional Intelligence Variables: Exploring the Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey compared the emotional intelligence of 254 (128 females) randomly selected Year 11 Brunei Cambridge General Certificate of Education (BCGCE) Ordinary Level students using the six subscales of the BarOn Emotional intelligence scale - youth version. Females scored significantly higher on the intrapersonal variable than males. However, males sored much higher on the positive impression subscale. In addition, students aged 16 scored significantly higher on the interpersonal scale than all others. However, the 15-year olds scored highest on the adaptability and positive impression scales than their peers. Furthermore, participants who reported that they were not so much satisfied with their personal life scored significantly higher on the interpersonal scale than their counterparts. Moreover, participants who consult friends when faced with problems scored significantly higher on the interpersonal variable while those who search the internet for solutions to problems scored higher than others on the adaptability scale. No significant differences were obtained on any subscale when participants were compared on the basis of their parents' marital status as well as the type of guardian they stayed / lived with. Implications of the findings are discussed and mixed-methods research was recommended.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".