MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297687557 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs22168156

Personality Styles and Mental Health Challenges in University Students

2022· article· en· W4297687557 on OpenAlexaff
Jawairia Saleem, Anam Iftikhar, Sadia Saleem, Sadia Majeed, Asma Siddiqui, Qurat Ul Ain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPersonalityNeuroticismPsychologyChecklistAnxietySymptom Checklist 90Clinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsSample (material)Government (linguistics)Applied psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To explore the relationship between different personality styles and mental health issues which students faced in university Study Design: Correlation Placement and duration: December 2018 to December 2020 in Private and government universities of Lahore. Methodology: The total sample comprised 300 participants with the age range of 19 -25 years (M=19. 94, SD=1. 63). Two measures were used, namely the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and Student Problem Checklist (SPCL) Results: According to current research, it was revealed that there was a significant relationship between types of personality and mental health issues. Neurotic individuals were faced with more mental issues than others. Sense of dysfunction had a positive significant relationship with lack of Confidence, Self-Regulation, and Anxiety proneness. Conclusion: it is essential to study personality types and mental health relationships because after knowing the relationship guidance and awareness can be developed in guardians. Keywords: styles of personality, Mental health Issues, University Students

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207