A Comparison of the Resilience, Anxiety, and Life Satisfaction of Chinese Left-Behind Children and International Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the resilience level, anxiety level, and life satisfaction level of Chinese left-behind children (LBC) and international students (IS) between 11 and 15 years old and investigated the relationships between these three variables and physical activity (PA). Chinese LBC (n = 86) from Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, China and Chinese IS (n = 60) in Vancouver, Canada filled out a survey that measured their resilience level, anxiety level, life satisfaction level, the duration and frequency of PA of different types and intensities in various domains, PA Enjoyment, and participants’ attitudes toward PA. In addition, 10 participants were randomly chosen to participate in an interview after completing the survey. The survey results showed that IS possessed higher resilience level and life satisfaction level than LBC, and both groups had no significant difference in anxiety level; LBC engaged in more PA than IS. Besides, resilience level was positively related to the amount of light PA in household or yard work domain as well as PA enjoyment; anxiety level was negatively related to PA enjoyment as well as annual household income; life satisfaction was positively related to the total amount of PA across all domains as well as PA enjoyment. Participants also mentioned in the interviews the effectiveness of PA in distracting them from worries and other negative emotions, which in turn helped reduce their anxiety and improve their resilience and life satisfaction. Therefore, participating in more PA could be a promising way to improve resilience level and life satisfaction level or reduce anxiety level for the two groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".