Investigate the Relation between Psychological Well-being, Self-efficacy and Positive Thinking at Prince Sattam bin Abdul Aziz University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between psychological well-being, self-efficacy and positive thinking, among Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University’s students in Saudi Arabia. To answer the study questions, three questionnaires were administrated, two were submitted by the researcher (psychological well-being and self-efficacy), positive thinking scale by (Radi & Metib, 2017) to 350 university students with range age of 18 to 36 years old. The study adopted a descriptive design to measure the degree of correlation between variables, Results of the study showed that students have moderate psychological well-being level, and that there was a positive relationship between psychological well-being; self-efficacy and positive thinking, also research results indicated that there was a positive relationship between self-efficacy and positive thinking, but the results showed that (gender, faculty, acedamic level) had no impact on psychological well-being or positive thinking. The impact was within (academic level) on self-efficacy in benefit of master degree group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".