MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768681862 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n4p114

Establishing the Contexts of Disruptive Behaviours and Psychological Implications among Pre-Primary and Primary School Pupils

2017· article· en· W2768681862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janet N. Igbo, Angie Ijeoma Oboegbulem, Ifeyinwa Ezenwaji

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologySample (material)PopulationDemographySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study attempted to examine the contexts under which disruptive behaviors occur among pupils in pre-primary and primary schools in Nsukka Urban. The population of the study comprised all pre-primary and schools pupils. A sample of one hundred and sixty-four (164) pupils (both male and female) was drawn. Data was collected through observation. The mean was adopted for answering the research questions. The findings indicated that the context under which disruptive behaviors were displayed by pupils, include the following: when child lacks writing materials, when the environment is noisy, when the child is oppressed by his or her classmates, when the child is frustrated and when the child lacks adequate communication. The findings also indicated that with male pupils, disruptive behaviors occur frequently under all the five items, while with the female pupils disruptive behaviors occur frequently under four of the items and occur slightly on one the items. The psychological implications were also addressed in the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207