Postgraduate Students: An Alert about Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Productivity demand of Brazilian Postgraduate Programs has increased as a result of global scientific andtechnological competitiveness, leading to stresses among researchers and students. Thus, this work was aimed atevaluating the quality of life of students of one Postgraduate Program in Agronomy through the WHOQOL-bref. Ofthe 36 students evaluated, there was a predominance of single women, childless, with a median age of 27 years, in aMaster Degree, without paid work or scholarship. The sample studied presented values below the median of theBrazilian population, when corrected for gender and age, for the psychological, social relations and environmentdomains. Students with partner had lower values for physical and psychological domains and students with paidwork showed a lower value for physical domain. The work phase affected the quality of life. The values for theenvironment domain increased when the student was writing the project, studying subjects and seeking theoreticalframework and decreased when the student was analysing the data. As the University is the dominant environmentfor the students when in post graduation, the activities that are associated with academic infrastructure as library andlaboratories, and with human resources as teachers and colleagues are realized with successful in relation to thosethat depend of the students themselves as the data analysis. These results alert us for the need for therapeuticinterventions aimed at improving the health conditions of postgraduate students.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".