MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984718915 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n13p98

The Association Between Parents’ Socio-Economic Status and the Level of Religiosity Among Undergraduates

2019· article· en· W2984718915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Idemudia Erhabor Sunday

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityPsychologyScale (ratio)Higher educationPost-hoc analysisSample (material)Social psychologyAssociation (psychology)MedicineGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the influence of parents’ socio-economic status on the level of religiosity in a sample of Nigerian undergraduates. A convenience sample of 200 students (mean age = 20.41 ± 2.54) participated in the study. Two structured scales were used which included Kuppuswanny’s scale and Duke University Religiosity Index. Data were analysed using one way ANOVA. Findings showed that the parental education, occupation and income significantly influenced the level of religiosity. A follow-up post-hoc analysis using Fisher’s LSD showed that participants whose parents were employed in non-professional occupation with lower education and poorer income were more religious compared to their counterparts whose parents had higher education, higher income and engaged in professional occupations. The study recommended that the upcoming generation of youth should utilize an objective, practical, and aggressive approach as a means to achieve better socio-economic and political transformation rather than using religion practises.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicReligion, Society, and Development→French-language works237,207→