"Attitudes Are Contagious”: Leisure Attitude and Passion of University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of leisure attitude in determining passion in university students and to examine gender differences in leisure attitude and passion. 154 female (Mage= 20.51±1.44) and 95 male (Mage= 22.26±1.93) a totally 249 (Mage= 21.18 ± 1.85) university students voluntarily participated in this study from Ankara/Turkey. “Leisure Attitudes Scale-Short Version” (LAS)" (Ragheb & Beard, 1982) and “Passion Scale” (PS) (Vallerand et al., 2003) were administered to university students. t-test and Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis were used to analyze the data. According to regression analysis; it was found that leisure attitude were the meaningful predictors of obsessive and harmonious passion. Analysis indicated significant differences in Passion Scale’s sub-scales (harmonious and obsessive passion) according to genders in favor of male participants (p< 0.05). As a result, it could be concluded that male participants were more passionate about activity than female participants in terms of gender, such as voluntarily participation, satisfaction, social acceptance anxiety and self-worth that explaining the concept of passion model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".