Examining the Influence of Savoring Interventions on Positive Emotions in University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In higher education, enhancing positive experiences for university students is a top priority. Savoring interventions have been extensively researched to help individuals in experiencing and amplifying specific positive emotions (PEs) within this educational context. The objective of this study is to investigate the overall impact of savoring interventions on PEs of university students. It also aims to determine the effectiveness of different categories of savoring interventions in achieving the desired outcomes. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases. A total of 14 studies were included in this study. The findings indicate that a variety of savoring interventions had significant and positive effects on students' PEs, with a combined effect size of 0.706 (p < 0.001). Specifically, past-focused savoring interventions demonstrated the highest mean effect size (ES = 0.748, p < 0.001) compared to present-focused (ES = 0.700, p = 0.05) and future-focused (ES = 0.735, p < 0.001) interventions. The findings demonstrate a noteworthy positive effect of savoring interventions on PEs in university students. Moreover, the results suggest that past-focused savoring interventions are more effective in enhancing PEs among university students compared to both present and future-focused interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".