The Relationship between Social Desirability, Responsibility, Self-Efficacy and Communication Skills of Students
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
<p>The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between social desirability, self-efficacy, and responsibility and communication skills of high school students in Ahvaz city. The sample of this study has been consisted of 360 participants that have been selected by cluster sampling method. This research is a descriptive and correlational study. The tools that have been used in this research are: Social Desirability questionnaire of Crowne and Marlowe (1960), the responsibility questionnaire of Harrison (1999), general self-efficacy questionnaire of Scherer et al. (1982) and communication skills questionnaire of Harjy and Marshall (1986). The data has been analyzed by using the statistical methods of Pearson correlation and multiple regressions. The results have shown that there is a positive relationship between social desirability, self-efficacy, responsibility and communication skills of students. The results of multiple regression analysis have shown that social desirability and responsibility and self-efficacy are respectively the best predictors of communication skills.</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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it