MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How do academic stress and leisure activities influence college students' emotional well‐being? A daily diary investigation

2017· article· en· W2749211731 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersShenzhen University
KeywordsPsychologyModerationAssociation (psychology)Stress (linguistics)Developmental psychologyLeisure activityClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China has one of the largest bodies of college students who face growing academic stress that influences their well-being. Using a daily diary method in a group of Chinese college students (n = 139, mean age = 19.50 years, 27% males) who reported their daily positive and negative emotion consecutively for two weeks, this study investigated the dynamic relations between daily academic stress, leisure activities engagement, and emotion, and further examined the moderation of sex on these links. The results showed that at both between- and within-person level, academic stress was positively associated with negative emotion, and leisure activities engagement was positively associated with positive emotion. The association between leisure activities engagement and positive emotion were stronger among female students than among male students. These results suggest that effectively reducing academic stress and actively engaging in leisure activities are both important in promoting and enhancing daily emotional well-being.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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