Coping Self-Efficacy and Stress Mindset as Predictors of Student Success Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students experience stress from academic demands. Stress is in fact expected in academic settings and important for achieving goals. How students experience the inevitable stress in the academic context, and whether stress is a support or hindrance for them, is related to their beliefs about stress. This study examined two types of beliefs regarding academic stress: (a) perceptions of being capable of coping with academic stress and demands, named coping self-efficacy, and (b) general beliefs regarding stress itself, named stress mindset, and the impact of those two stress beliefs on two types of outcomes related to student success: academic performance (GPA) and student experiences (mental health, perceived motivation challenges). Findings indicate coping self-efficacy positively predicts higher mental health and lower motivation challenges; neither stress mindset nor coping self-efficacy predicted GPA. Coping self-efficacy in the university context, which denotes feeling capable of managing stress and academic demands, emerged as a useful predictor of student success outcomes. As eliminating stress altogether is not practical or possible, this research focuses on beliefs about stress as important for student success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".