Psychological Stress Coping Strategies as Predictors of Academic Passion among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the relationship between psychological stress coping strategies and academic passion, as well as to determine the extent to which these strategies contribute to predicting academic passion among university students. The sample consisted of 422 final-year students enrolled in the Faculties of Pharmacy, Science, and Education at Kafrelsheikh University. A descriptive research design was employed, and the study utilized two instruments: the Psychological Stress Coping Strategies Scale and the Academic Passion Scale.The findings revealed statistically significant positive correlations at the 0.01 level between academic passion and several coping strategies, including problem-solving, emotional expression, wishful thinking, social support, cognitive restructuring, problem avoidance, and social withdrawal. In contrast, no statistically significant correlation was observed at the 0.01 level between academic passion and the strategy of self-criticism. Furthermore, the results indicated that students’ scores on the Psychological Stress Coping Strategies Scale significantly predicted their levels of academic passion. Based on the findings of the present study, a set of recommendations was proposed, and avenues for future research were identified.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".