MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Solicitude Should be Concerned in the Management of College Students

2010· article· en· W2120692148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhang Lan-ying

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Behavior and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaslow's hierarchy of needsIdeologyTask (project management)Fundamental human needsIncentiveHierarchyPsychologySelf-actualizationPower (physics)Moral educationPedagogySociologySocial psychologyManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern education holds the concept that education is for the people. Based on the Maslow’s “Hierarchy of needs”theory, the paper analyzes the different levels of needs of the college students and the driving effects of those needs exerting on the students. The theory can be applied to the task of the management of college students. The paper proposes that a scientific student management task should start with the intrinsic motivation, satisfying the needs of the multi-layered needs of the students, attaching great importance to the human solicitude in the student management. The management of college students should focus on the ideological and moral education, make the use of motivation incentives to cultivate their temperamental qualities, explore their multi-layered potentials, boost their creative power, and encourage them to pursue higher life values and achieve self-actualization. Key words: Student management; motivation methods; ideological and moral education; self-actualization

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicHuman Behavior and MotivationFrench-language works237,207