Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way an individual feels about the people and events in the society they live in and their prosocial behavior for the welfare of society is defined as social sensitivity. Conducting effective studies of social sensitivity depends on the development of measurement tools with proven validity and reliability. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a Social Sensitivity Scale (SSS) for university students. The research consisted of two stages. During the first stage, data were collected from a total of 297 university students to conduct an explanatory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis. During the second stage, data were collected from a total of 203 university students to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a reliability analysis, and assess criterion validity. As a result of the EFA, 12 items and four factors were obtained. The total variance explained by these factors was 72.04%. The structure was confirmed by performing CFA. The associations between the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) and the Prosocial Behavioral Intentions Scale (PBIS) were examined to assess criterion validity. The Cronbach’s alpha values were determined as 0.80 and 0.75. All the validity and reliability analyses indicated that the scale was valid and reliable in determining the social sensitivity levels of university students. Cite this article as: Bozdağ, F., & Bozdağ, S. (2021). Development of Social Sensitivity Scale. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 18(1): 84-101.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".