Exploring Emotional Intelligence and Academic Performance of Filipino University Academic Achievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The responsibility of academic institutions to produce holistically developed individuals puts compounded pressure on the school administrators to raise students’ achievement. While most learning institutions put a premium on readying its learners in attaining scholastic success, it is quite apparent how most Philippine schools neglected to put an ample attention to one’s emotional and social growth. This current study utilized a descriptive-correlational design—with a randomized sample of 203 university academic achievers between ages of 16 to 21—to generate relationships among factors derived from Emotional Quotient-i: Youth Version (EQ-i:YV) and academic performance as measured by General Pointed Average (GPA). Pearson’s correlations suggested that the overall emotional intelligence has significant positive associations with intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability and general mood scales while overall emotional intelligence and its composite scales are related to academic performance. Thus the findings affirmed the claim that the more the academic achievers become emotional-social intelligent, the higher their tendency to exude academic prowess. This study further highlights the potential implications of emotional intelligence in educational progress and academic success; hence emotional intelligence-based activities should be integrated in higher education curriculum.</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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".