The Effect of Outdoor Sports as Undergraduate Elective Course on Environmental Sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the views of students who take or do not take outdoor sports as undergraduate elective course at different departments of Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University on environmental sensitivity. The study group consists of 288 undergraduate students with a mean age of 20.9 ± 2.19 studying at the Faculty of Education, Vocational School of Higher Education, Faculty of Dentistry, and Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences. Of the students, 140 (90 males and 50 females) take Outdoor Sports as an elective course. Scanning method was employed in the study. A questionnaire on environmental sensitivity to determine the students’ knowledge, sensitivity and attitudes was conducted randomly as data instrument. In the evaluation of data, aside from descriptive statistical methods (arithmetic average, standard deviation, frequency-percentage), normality test was made for all variables in the research. All the variables comply with the normal distribution at p < 0.05 significance level. T-test was conducted for the independent variable in between-group comparisons of the parameters, with a statistical significance at p < 0.05 level. Within this study, a statistically significant difference was found between the general score averages of student views on environmental sensitivity by gender (p = 0.047). However, as far as taking Outdoor Sports as elective is concerned, there was not a statistically significant difference between the general score averages of student views on environmental sensitivity (p = .693). There was also no statistically significant difference between the general score averages of the views on environmental sensitivity of students who take and do not take the elective outdoor sports course (p < 0.05).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".