Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students of medicine and medicine specialist education is related to significant distress which could change physical and psychological health for worse. Stress activities could be different such as anxiety, depression and burn out. Avoiding to be a stress victim, person resorts to stress coping strategies known shortly as coping. This is a behavior, which is stress dependable and it is a social behavior variety. Coping includes different styles of get better of stress: problem focused, emotionally focused and avoiding coping style.Objective: Coping behavior of Midwifes studied in Medical University – Sofia and stress coping strategies used to overcome stress.Research and methods: 23 students in the third year and 22 students in the fourth year coping behavior of Midwifes, all aged between 23 and 52 studied in Medical University – Sofia, has been researched. Documentary, psychometric and graphic analysis have been used for the purpose of the current research. Psychometric method includes of methods of CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations - GRI-V1, created by the Canadian psychologist Edler, N. C. assisted by Parkar, D. A.Results: Most of the students used problem-focused coping (PFC), followed by avoiding coping style (ACS) and emotionally focused coping (EFC). Students applied PFC and EFC have higher scores in accordance with these used ACS. This research gives a chance problematic students to be identified more precisely as well as to be encouraged to use more efficient and more adaptive coping styles.Conclusion: The early discovery of sources of stress among students in major “Midwifery” since the beginning of university education and the development of adequate coping strategies is an important prerequisite for the successful acquisition of new knowledge and the formation of professional competences necessary for a successful professional development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".