MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405128701 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n1p82

The Mediating Effect of Student Involvement between Social Practice Activity and Sense of Social Responsibility

2024· article· en· W4405128701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fenghua Wang, Zuraimy Mohamed Noordin

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial responsibilityPsychologyPedagogySocial psychologyMathematics educationPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims to understand the intricate association between Social Practice Activity (SPA), Students' Involvement (SI), and Sense of Social Responsibility (SSR), and focuses on the following two questions: (1) What is the relationship between SPA, SI and SSR? (2) Does SI have a mediating role in SPA and SSR? The questionnaire was employed in this study, 502 valid questionnaires were received from college students at a vocational university in Shanxi, China. Data were analyzed using the software including SPSS and AMOS, and the specific methods include correlational analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The Bootstrap method mediating effect test was used to test the mediating role of SI between SPA and SSR. The results revealed that there was a significant correlation between SPA, SI and SSR and their dimensions. SI (including rule-based involvement, procedural involvement, and autonomous involvement) has a positive mediating effect between SPA (including activity organization, teacher guidance, and service support) and SSR (including global social responsibility and responsibility of people). This result supports that focus on students' involvement in social practice activities, and combine the creation of an external environment with the promotion of individual involvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207