Locus of control and overt aggression in secondary school students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between locus of control and overt aggression in secondary school students. It was anticipated that students with locus of control profiles with higher scores in the two external subscales of Levenson's I, P, and C Scales (i.e. "powerful others" and/or "chance") and lower internal scores would exhibit more overt aggressive behaviour than would students with lower external and higher internal scores. Subjects were comprised of 616 secondary school students (298 females and 31 8 males) between the ages of 1 3 and 1 8. Each student completed the Levenson I, P, and C Scales, measuring locus of control, near the beginning of the school year. All students were monitored for overt aggressive behaviour over the course of that same school year. The correlation between individual students' overt aggressive behaviours and their respective locus of control profiles was examined using multiple linear regression as the main statistical analysis. Results of this study indicate that locus of control had a significant effect in predicting overt aggression. Over 44% of the variance in overt aggressive behaviour was predicted by locus of control scores.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".