MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416408356 · doi:10.18844/cjes.v10i3.227

Analyzing the levels of depressive symptoms among secondary school students in Canada and Turkey

2015· article· en· W2416408356 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zeynep Karataş, Richard E. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCypriot Journal of Educational Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsResearch Unit on Children's Psychosocial Maladjustment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishDepressive symptomsPsychologyTest (biology)Clinical psychologyAnalysis of varianceDemographyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAnxietySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the level of depressive symptoms of the secondary school students in Turkey and Canada has been aimed in this study. The research group of the study consists of 1050 secondary school students with the average age of 13. Their socio-economic levels are low in both countries, Canada and Turkey. Data has been analyzed by independent groups t-Test, Two Way ANOVA and Tukey HSD Test. The study revealed that the level of depressive symptoms of Turkish secondary school students has been found higher than the level of depressive symptoms of Canadian secondary school students. While the levels of depressive symptoms of the Canadian female students have been higher than male students, the level of depressive symptoms of Turkish students has not differentiated in terms of their genders. While the common interactions of the educational levels of Turkish students’ parents on depressive symptoms have been found significant, the levels of depressive symptoms of Canadian pupils have not presented any changes according to parents’ educational levels. The results of the study have been discussed and some suggestions have been presented. Keywords: depressive symptoms, secondary school students, early adolescent, Canada, Turkey.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCypriot Journal of Educational SciencesSame topicTeacher Professional Development and MotivationFrench-language works237,207