Competence and Satisfaction in Occupational Performance Among a Sample of University Students: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Success at university may be influenced by concerns with occupation and occupational performance. To understand occupations of concern and occupational performance among a sample ( N = 144) of university students in the Midwest United States, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was administered. Socially related ( n = 103), academic-related ( n = 75), and work-related ( n = 64) occupations were the three most frequently reported occupational concerns. Time management ( n = 79) was the most frequent person-level concern. Mean self-perceived competence in occupations was 29.83 ( SD = 7.18) out of 50 and mean performance satisfaction was 26.80 ( SD = 8.01) out of 50. There were no differences in occupational performance across gender, race/ethnicity, class standing, living environment, or work status. However, within participants, there was a significant and clinically relevant difference between performance satisfaction and self-perceived competence in occupation, t(143) = 7.052, p < .0005, d = 0.58. Students have varied occupations that they find important, and future research should explore how occupational performance and performance satisfaction influence university success.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".