Student’s Lifestyles: Cross Cultural Research (Thailand and Australia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine and compare the lifestyles of Australian and Thai undergraduates. There were 213 students who participated in the study; 112 were Thai and 101 were Australian. The instrument included a questionnaire containing six lifestyle categories. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient revealed that the questionnaire’s reliability ranged from 0.71 to 0.92. The data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and t-test. The result indicated that the overall lifestyle score of students from both countries was moderate. However, there were differences between the two groups’ lifestyles. The Australian participants favored the healthy lifestyle, whereas the Thai participants favored the conservative and homey lifestyles. Interestingly, the Australian participants’ trendy lifestyle score was the lowest, while the Thai participants’ night going lifestyle score was the highest. Comparing the two groups revealed a statistically significant difference of 0.05. This indicated that the Thai participants’ lifestyles were more apparent than those of their counterparts. Only the night going lifestyle and the healthy lifestyle were rated higher by Australians than by Thais. The findings illustrate the differences in lifestyles between two countries, reflecting the complexity of lifestyle development in various dimensions. Understanding this complexity is therefore crucial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".