Coping Behavior of International Late Adolescent Students in Selected Australian Educational Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Adolescent Coping Scale, ACS (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) we surveyed 45 randomly selected foreign adolescents in Australian schools. The coping strategies used most by the participants were: focus on solving the problem; seeking relaxing diversions; focusing on the positive; seeking social support; worry; seeking to belong; investing in close friends; wishful thinking; and keep to self (Table 4). With regard to coping styles, the most widely used was the productive coping followed by non-productive coping while the least used style was reference to others (Table 4). In terms of both genders the four coping strategies used most often were: work hard to achieve; seeking relaxing diversions; focus on solving the problem; and focus on the positive (Table 5). The most noticeable gender difference was the use of the physical recreation coping strategy in which male students engaged more (Fig 1). The usage of four coping strategies (solving problem; work hard; focus on positive; and social support) was higher for students who have been away from family more than once as compared to those who have been away once only while the usage of seeking relaxing diversions was higher for the first timers (Table 6). No significant differences were obtained on the sample's performance on the ACS subscales by gender (Table 7), frequency of leaving own country (Table 8), country of origin (Table 9), and length of stay in Australia (Table 11). However, foundation students scored significantly higher on the reference to others variable than their secondary school peers (Table 10). We recommended counseling for students with high support needs and further large-scale mixed-methods research to gain additional insights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".