Associations of Intellectual Ability with Emotional Intelligence, Academic Achievement and Aggression of Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The current study examined the relationship of intellectual ability with emotional intelligence, academic achievement, and aggression of adolescents.Methods: Correlational design was utilized to study the relationship between these variables. Adolescent students (N=500, 50% boys & 50% girls, with the mean age of 15.01 years & SD of 1.11) were approached from different private schools and colleges of Karachi. To measure their intellectual ability, emotional intelligence, and aggression, Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for children, adolescents, and adults (DAP: IQ), Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), and Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form (AQ-12) were administered. Their academic achievement was assessed through their percentage of most recent examination. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was utilized to analyse the results.Results: Intellectual ability was significantly positively related with emotional intelligence and its domains i.e. Self-Emotional Appraisal, Others’ Emotional Appraisal, Use of Emotions, and Regulation of Emotions (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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".