Factors Influencing Sustainability Communication of Communication Arts Students in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to construct a causal relationship model of factors influencing communication arts students’ qualification for sustainability communication (SC), examine the goodness-of-fit model with empirical data, and analyze the effect size of the causal relationship model in terms of influencing factors. Data were collected from 400 communication arts students using a set of questionnaires rated on a five-point scale. The results were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 and LISREL version 8.80 to determine the causal relationship model. The findings revealed that the construct of the causal relationship model of factors influencing SC of these students comprised four latent variables measured from 12 observed variables. Moreover, the influencing factors were consistent with the empirical data at a good level considering the accordance index, which consisted of x2 = 13.153, df = 25, p-Value = 0.974, RMSEA = 0.000, Standardized RMR = 0.006, GFI = 0.996, and AGFI = 0.979. The causal relationship model of the factors affecting SC revealed that education sustainable development could have direct, indirect, and total effects; the knowledge-based journalist concept could have direct, indirect, and total effects; and communication art principles could have direct and total effects, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".