Bibliographic record
Abstract
College adjustment has been attributed to many factors. Whereas some students make the transition to college with relative ease, others experience many adjustment difficulties. This study examined the role of personality type in students' levels of adjustment to college. One hundred and seven male and female, first year students participated in this study. In determining the level of adjustment of students, the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) was administered. Dependent variables were the four SACQ subscales (academic adjustment, social adjustment, goal commitment/institutional attachment, personal-emotional adjustment) and the SACQ full-scale score. Independent variables investigated were the four Myers Briggs Type Indicator dichotomies (Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving), place of residence, gender, and four College Adjustment Scale (CAS) subscales (family problems, career problems, self-esteem problems, interpersonal problems). Results suggested that Extraversion and Perceiving contributed to social adjustment; however, the Relative Pratt Index suggests that the contribution was not important. Finally, Judging contributed to academic adjustment. While many of the CAS problems scales were significantly related to the adjustment scales, the most significant finding was that the self-esteem problems subscale was a particularly effective indicator of all areas of adjustment as well as overall adjustment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".