Influence of Life Patterns and Coping with Stress on Teacher Students’ Tobacco Purchasing Behavior in Bangkok
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teacher students’ tobacco-purchasing behaviors have been a problem among teacher students in Thailand. Life patterns and coping with stress levels have been perceived as the main contributors to these behaviors. Life pattern is based on the concepts of the lifestyles of a person. People tend to share similar lifestyle orientations when they are in similar social groups or have similar interests. This includes teachers students and their learning environment. Additionally, coping with stress is referred to as teacher students’ coping skills when they feel pressure in life. Therefore, this research article aimed to study how life patterns and coping with stress influence teacher students’ tobacco-purchasing behavior in Bangkok. The research questionnaire was a five-level Likert scale questionnaire. Data was collected through a survey with 900 teacher students from three universities in Bangkok. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and Multiple Linear Regression by Enter technique. The data analysis indicated that life pattern positively influences the tobacco-purchasing behavior of teacher students in the Bangkok area with a coefficient of influence at .470 with significant at .01 level (P-Value <.001); while coping with stress had a negative influence over the purchasing behavior with a coefficient of influence at -.104 with statistical significant at .01 level (P-Value <.001). This suggested that when coping with stress increases by 1 unit, the level of tobacco purchasing behavior decreases by .104 units. The two variables were able to predict tobacco-purchasing behavior at 20.5 percent.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".