A Comparative Study of Students’ Happiness Levels and Thinking Styles in Physical Education and Sport Teaching, and Other Departments, in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were to compare the happiness and thinking styles of undergraduate students in the Physical Education and Sports Teaching Department and different departments, and to examine the relations between the students’ happiness levels and their thinking styles. Using the correlational study design 661, undergraduate students were determined by a convenience sampling method. Participants were selected in terms of being easily accessible from Gazi University, which is located in the Ankara province, Turkey. The analysis indicated that the Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching students' average level of happiness was significantly higher than in some other departments. However, the Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching students' need for cognition was not significantly different from the students from other departments. Physical Education and Sports Teaching students' faith in intuition was significantly higher than the Department of Guidance and Psychological Counseling students’. Besides, the happiness levels and thinking styles did not differ significantly by gender. There was a positive correlation between their faith in intuition and happiness. However, there was no significant relation between their happiness levels and need for cognition, nor need for cognition and their faith in intuition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".