AN INVESTIGATION OF SOCIAL SKILLS AND LONELINESS LEVELS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ATTACHMENT STYLES IN A SAMPLE OF TURKISH STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of attachment styles of university students on their social skills and loneliness levels. Their social skill levels, loneliness levels and attachment styles were measured by the Social Skills Inventory, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and Relationships Scale Questionnaire respectively. To analyze data, t-test, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were employed. Emotional expressivity levels, emotional sensitivity levels, social control levels, and total social skill levels of female students were found to be significantly higher than those of male students. However, emotional control levels of male students were significantly higher than those of female students. A significant effect of attachment styles on loneliness and social skills was detected. Social skill levels of students who have secure attachment styles were found to be significantly higher than social skills levels of students who have insecure attachment styles. Average loneliness points of students who do not have a romantic relationship were found to be significantly higher than others. However, the average social skill points of those students were found to be significantly lower than others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".