MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128298904 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p169

The Relationship of Spiritual Well-Being and Involvement with Depression and Perceived Stress in Korean Nursing Students

2014· article· en· W2128298904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Younkyung Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismWell-beingAttendancePsychologyClinical psychologyStress (linguistics)Depression (economics)Promotion (chess)Psychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: This study was conducted to identify the relationship among spiritual well-being, depression and perceived stress. Participants were 518 nursing students located in K province, Korea. DESIGN: Exploratory design was used for this study. Data were collected and analyzed by t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients. The results were as follows; 1) Participants' mean scores were Spiritual Well-Being 76.03 (15.74), Religious Well-Being 32.8 (15.74), Existential Well-Being 43.23 (8.12), depression 9.10 (7.06), and level of stress 15.47 (5.49). 2) Spiritual Well-Being, Existential Well-Being, and Religious Well-Being were significantly different with the number of attendance to religious ceremony, the degree of subjective satisfaction regard to major and idea for future employment. 3) Negative correlations existed between Spiritual Well-Being and participants' perceived stress, and depression. 4) Particularly, Existential Well-Being has more inverse correlation with depression and stress than Religious Well-Being. This investigation highlighted Existential Well-Being as an important factor with lower levels of depression and perceived stress. According to these result, Spiritual Well-Being promotion program is needed to develop as a positive concept to adjust college life and spiritual well-being is required to take care of patients as potential power for nursing students in their future.

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207