Predictive Effect of Social Achievement Goals and Classroom Incivility on Difficulties during Emotion Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the predictive role of students’ social achievement goals and classroom incivility levels in their emotion regulation skills. The study was conducted with 309 university students and used “Social Achievement Goal Scale”, “The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale” and “Classroom Incivility Scale” as data collection tools. The study was carried out with 309 university students in Turkey during 2016-2017 academic year (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year students). The findings obtained from regression analysis revealed that social achievement goals and classroom incivility account 15% of total changes in the difficulties faced during emotion regulation. As for the sub goals of the study, it was found that “social achievement goals” mean score of females was higher than that of males; males had higher “classroom incivility” levels than females; and the mean score of females for “difficulties in emotional regulation” was higher than that of males. While no difference was found in “incivility” factor in terms of “age” variable, there were significant differences in “social achievement goals” and “the difficulties in emotional regulation” factors. Similarly, there was no significant difference in “social achievement goals” and “classroom incivility factors” in terms of “class year” variable, but a significant difference was found for “difficulties in emotion regulation” factor. In addition, the results did not reveal any significant differences in “social achievement goals” and “classroom incivility” factors according to “perceived parental attitude”; however, a significant difference was found in “the difficulties in emotional regulation” factor. The research findings were discussed within the framework of the related literature.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".