MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307131504 · doi:10.5430/jct.v11n7p27

Application and Related Research on the Psychological Capital Theory in Higher Education Research

2022· article· en· W4307131504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chensha Fu, Fwu-Yuan Weng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital (architecture)PsychologyInterpersonal communicationPositive psychological capitalField (mathematics)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological capital refers to a state of positive energy displayed in the heart of an individual in the process of self-growth and comprehensive and healthy development. Many scholars at home and abroad have found through research that psychological capital, as a positive psychological state, plays a significant positive role in evaluating and regulating college students in many aspects, such as academic performance, interpersonal relationships, stress relief, mental health, etc. Based on this, the article aims to draw on the current relatively mature research results of psychological capital theory, and deeply and systematically analyzes and discusses these research results, so as to provide valuable conclusions for the in-depth study of psychological capital theory in the field of college education. To meet that aim, a range of general methods including, descriptive, observational , literature review analysis are utilized. Given the results, in higher education, the application of psychological capital theory is still in the initial exploration period, and it needs to be explored comprehensively and deeply to make it continuously perfect.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.479
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207