MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468926784 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n3p88

The Contribution of Emotional Intelligence and Achievement Motivation on Psychological Well-Being

2016· article· en· W2468926784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryam Ghahremani, Zohreh Ostovar

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligencePsychologyPromotion (chess)Need for achievementCluster samplingAcademic achievementMultilevel modelPsychological well-beingPopulationDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was contribution of Emotional intelligence and achievement motivation on psychological well-being of students in the Shahr-e-Qods University. The statistical population of this study included all the students of University from 2015 to 2016. A sample of 200 students has been selected through cluster sampling. These students responded to a set of questionnaires included emotional intelligence (EI), achievement motivation, and psychological well-being. Hierarchical regression analyses conducted for each dependent variable showed that emotional intelligence and achievement motivation could be considered as important indicators of psychological well-being (p<0.01).The results indicated that achievement motivation can predict psychological well-being, and among emotional intelligence components, self-control and self-awareness can predict psychological well-being. As the results indicated, growth and promotion of the emotional intelligence can be considered as methods for improving students' psychological well-being. This can be promoted and revolted through a rich Educational Environment, so it is recommended to teach emotional intelligence skills to students with low psychological well-being through training workshops.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207