Coping Styles of Community Workers and the Influencing Factors in Hangzhou
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore coping styles of community workers in Hangzhou and their influencing factors.Methods The stratified random cluster sampling was used in enrollment of 234 community workers in Hangzhou.Trait Coping Style Questionnaire(TCSQ),Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness(MUNSH),Social Support Rating Scale(SSRS),Self-Rating Anxiety Scale(SAS)and Self-Rating Depression Scale(SDS)were taken in a questionnaire survey among the subjects.Results Our data demonstrated that the positive coping style and the negative coping style of community workers were significantly higher than the norms(P0.01).The influencing factors of positive coping style were positive experience,depressive symptoms,objective support.The influencing factors of negative coping style were depressive symptoms,negative experience,subjective support,positive emotion,positive experience.Conclusion The community workers present a state of highly psychological stress,attention should be paid to improve their coping styles to enhance their coping ability.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it