Academic and non-academic factors explaining anxiety among accounting students: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic
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
Studies have demonstrated the presence of anxiety among undergraduate students. Some causal factors are academic, but many are non-academic. The pandemic changed the way education is delivered, requiring remote learning for all. This situation disrupted students’ academic routines and presented significant learning challenges, causing anxiety. The pandemic also exacerbated the impact of non-academic factors, given the social distancing imposed. Based on a structural model analyzing 348 undergraduate accounting student responses, results show that a combination of academic and non-academic factors triggered anxiety among accounting students in the e-learning pandemic context. The items loading on the most important anxiety-inducing academic factor, namely teaching/learning challenges, suggest that the most basic teaching practices related to planning course workload and management should be considered in all circumstances and delivery modes. The paper offers academia ways to better prepare for the new learning modalities in accounting education or during a future pandemic.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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