The Relationship between Life Satisfaction and Academic Performance: An Example of Sports Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyday stress, happiness, health status and individual characteristics affect life satisfaction, which, in turn, affectsome other factors. Therefore, high life satisfaction in academics affects their academic performance positively. Theaim of this study is to examine the relationship between sports science academics’ life satisfaction and academicperformance. Study sample consisted of 188 male and 151 female sports science academics working in differentregions. Data were collected using the “Contentment with Life Assessment Scale” (CLAS) developed by Lavallee,Hatch, Michalos & McKinley (2007), and adapted to Turkish language by Akın and Yılmaz (2015), and the“Perceived Academic Performance Scale” developed by Gür (2017). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics,t-test, one-way variance analysis (ANOVA), Tukey multiple comparison test and correlation test. Results show thatmale academics have better academic performance than female academics. Results show no statistically significantrelationship between life satisfaction and academic performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".