Coping Mechanism of the Humss Senior High School Students of St. Paul University Surigao in the New Normal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presented in this study is the Coping Mechanism of the HUMSS Senior High School Students of St. Paul University Surigao in the New Normal. The factors that help determine the coping mechanism of the students were emotion-focused and problem-focused. There were 75 Grade 11 and 121 students from the Grade 12, as participants of the study using the purposive random sampling technique. Each participant was sent a link to a researchers-made questionnaire using Google form as a medium of the survey. The data gathered were analyzed by the following descriptive statistical tools: (a) frequency distribution and percentage, (b) mean and standard deviation, (c) analysis of variance (ANOVA).With this, the coping mechanism when it comes to emotion-focused had an average of 3.19 and was described as often. The coping mechanism when it comes to problem-focused had an average of 3.09 and was described as often. In the view of the findings and the conclusion drawn from the gathered data about what coping mechanism of the HUMSS students, the emotion-focused has been found often when it comes to the student’s coping mechanism while as to problem-focused, students still obtained it as a coping when facing and easing their tension. Also, the student’s coping mechanism when using emotion-focused and problem-focused vary according to their sex.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it