MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991468748 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n14p52

Gender Differences in Academic Burnout Among Economics Education Students

2019· article· en· W2991468748 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvester N. Ogbueghu, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Robert Augustine Igwe, Jingak Emmanuel Dauda, James J. Yahaya, Bartholomew C. Nwefuru, Njideka Dorathy Eneogu, Francisca C. Okeke

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutGovernment (linguistics)Medical educationPsychologyEconomics educationSample (material)Data collectionTest (biology)MedicineClinical psychologyPedagogySocial scienceSociologyPrimary education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study objective was to ascertain gender differences in academic burnout among Economics Education undergraduate students in South-East Nigeria. The study employed a cross-sectional research design. Respondents were a convenience sample of 550 Economics Education students from federal universities in the area of study. A self-report burnout questionnaire was used for data collection. Mean, standard deviation and t-test were used for analysis of data. The outcome of the study revealed that there is no significant mean difference in academic burnout among male and female undergraduate students in Economics Education. Thus, government through higher education regulatory bodies should intensify efforts in providing adequate facilities, good learning environment and manpower to encourage effective learning and reduce burnout symptoms among Economics Education students in South-East Nigeria.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207