Psychological Features of the Personality of Students of Different Specialties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the article is the correspondence of individual and typological features of the student to the chosen direction, which promotes successful adaptation to study at the university and readiness for future professional activity. The aim is to reveal psychological features of personality of students: doctors, engineers, and jurists. Materials and methods are the following: 180 students of 1-3 year (17-25 years old): future doctors (n=80), jurists (n=50), and engineers (n=50). We studied the psychological characteristics of personality. The program «Mini-mult» of the medical diagnostic hardware and software complex «Biomysh Research» («Neurolab», Russia) was used. The statistical analysis was performed by parametric method using the Student's t-test.The results are the following: students of different specialties have intergroup and individual differences in neurodynamic and cognitive functions. The most significant difference was found on scales 1, 2, 6, 7 (р˂0.05-0.01). The personality pattern of students (future doctors and jurists) has a «peak», three-phase pattern, and no reliable differences between the contrasting ones. The average psychological profile of the personality of students, future engineers is «linear», all its indicators are between 45T and 55T. Such profile is found in persons referred to the concordant norm.Conclusions are the following: students of all studied groups are characterized by high openness and desire to present themselves in a more favorable light on indicators of three evaluation scales (L, F, K). The psychological profiles of doctors and jurists are similar. Contrasting «peaks» are on scales of hysteria, paranoia and schizoidity. It testifies to constant dissatisfaction and indomitable aspiration to the set goal. Determination, flexibility of behavior with low level of anxiety, and confidence in decision making are inherent in future doctors and jurists. Engineering students are confident, satisfied with themselves and their surroundings, sociable, optimistic, and cheerful. However, their level of anxiety is higher than the level of jurists. It is recommended to create a system of organizational and pedagogical conditions for the formation and development of «western components of professional mobility» for students of various specialties.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".