The Relationship between the Styles of Coping with Stress and the Levels of Hopelessness of Preschool Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this research is to examine the relationship between the styles of coping with stress and the levels of hopelessness of preschool teachers. Relational survey method was used in this research. The research sample consists of 108 preschool teachers working in preschool education institutions in Küçükçekmece district of Istanbul in the spring term of 2015-2016 and selected by the random sampling method. The Teacher Information Form, Styles of Coping with Stress Scale and Beck Hopelessness Scale were used in the data collection. Data collected for the study were analysed using SPSS 20 program. At the end of the research, it was found out that the most used sytle by preschool teachers to cope with stress is the self-confident approach and the least used style is the submissive approach. As the preference rates of the self-confident approach and optimistic approach in coping with stress of preschool teachers increase, the level of hopelessness decreases; as the preference rates of the helpless approach increase, the levels of hopelessness increase. The styles of coping with stress and the levels of hopelessness of preschool teachers do not vary by age, marital status, professional seniority, the number of children they have, the level of income and the school type that they work in.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".