MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198512177 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n1p154

Students’ Individual and Social Behaviors with Physical Education Teachers’ Personality

2015· article· en· W2198512177 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azizollah Arbabisarjou, Mehdi Sadeghian Sourki, Seyedeh Elaham Hashemi Bonjar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityPhysical educationSample (material)PopulationData collectionBig Five personality traitsSocial psychologyConstruct validityScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyMathematics educationPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">The main objective for this survey is to assess the relationship between physical education teachers’ personality and students’ individual with social behaviors. The statistical population of the study was all the teachers of physical education working at high schools in the academic year 2012-2013. The sample consisted of sixty teachers that were selected by stratified sampling method proportionate to the sample volume. The research method was descriptive-correlative type. The collection data instruments were the five-factor questionnaire of McCrae and Costa (2013) and a questionnaire about beliefs, individual and social behaviors tailored by the researcher. The reliability of two questionnaires in a pilot study was 0.89 and 0.83 respectively. Both questionnaires had conceptual and construct validity. The findings of the study indicated that there was a relationship between personality aspects of physical education teachers and students’ beliefs, individual and social behaviors. Since paying attention to the personality of physical education teachers could help improve the students’ beliefs and individual behaviors.</p>

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)0.000
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207