MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113238898 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n4p22

Scores of Brunei Lower Secondary School Students on Emotional Intelligence Variables: Exploring the Differences

2015· article· en· W2113238898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norfaezah Masri

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207