Investigation of the Sense Responsibility and Lifestyles of Sport-Scientific Faculty Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the levels of perception of aphasia (alexithymia) and loneliness in university students. The model of the research is descriptive and cross-sectional. It was held between February 1 and May 31, 2017. Survey form was used as data collection tool in the research. The questionnaire consists of personal information consisting of 8 questions, Toronto Alexithymia (TAS) scale consisting of 26 questions and UCLA loneliness scale consisting of 20 questions. The Toronto Alexithymia scale (TAS) scale is a self-reported scale consisting of 26 questions and 4 subscales to scale the alexithymic characteristics of individuals. The scale was developed by Taylar and Bagby (1988), first used by Dereboy (1990) in the expertise thesis and adapted to Turkish by Varol (1998). Scale sub-dimensions and Cronbach's Alpha coefficients obtained in this study are given respectively. 0.752 for the imagination, 0,752 for the constraint sub-dimension in the case of dreams, 0,761 for the sub-dimension of difficulty in distinguishing and recognizing feelings and physical senses, 0,718 for the sub-dimension of recognizing, recognizing and talking about emotion, and cognitive structure sub- was found to be 0.784. The scale was developed by Russell and colleagues and reorganized by Russell et al. (1980). The Turkish reliability and validity study of the scale was conducted by Yaparel (1984). The scale is one-dimensional. In this study, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the UCLA scale was 0,782. The universe of the research is constituted by students from the Department of Teaching, Coaching Department, Management Department and Recreation Department of the Faculty of Sports Sciences of Fırat University in 2016-2017. The sample of the research consists of 350 students who are educated in these sections. A simple coincidental voluntary sampling method was used in the selection of the sample. In the reliability of the sample, sample size calculation formula prepared by Yazıcıoglu and Erdogan (2004) was used. The data were analyzed in the SPSS 16 packet program. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, t test, anova test and correlation analysis were used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".