Investigation of Health Sciences University Students' Healthy Living Behavior Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All of the behaviors that people exhibit in order to stay healthy both physically and psychologically and maintain their health during their lifetime are included in the definition of "healthy life behavior". In this study, it was aimed to identify and compare the perceptions of healthy life behavior of students of the Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences and Psychology Department Students who study at the University of Health Sciences. A total of 199 students, 97 students from the sports science department (age: 19.84 ± 1.801, weight: 65.30 ± 12.460), and 102 students from the psychology department (age: 20.12 ± 1.916 weight: 60.17 ± 9.881) participated in the study. There was a statistically significant difference between the scale total scores of the participants and the dimensions of health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, stress management, and the measurements of the students of sports science students and students of psychology sciences in terms of an increase in sport sciences students (p <0.05). There was no significant difference between the participants' interpersonal communication and spiritual development scores, which are the sub-dimensions of the scale (p˃0.05). University education is an education period in which students can decide independently. These results showed that sports students and psychology sciences students' different undergraduate education also affected their healthy lifestyle behaviors. In this context, it is concluded that directing students of other departments of the university to exercise and sports activities will contribute to their perceptions of healthy lifestyle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".