Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present there is no hown cure for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Ako, neither medical nor psychological models have been able to discover the cause of CFS. The present study investigates four psychosocial variables (Me stress, social support, adult attachment, and parental bonding) that are hypothesized to predispose individuals to this illness. Twenty-two participants (5 men and 17 women) diagnosed with CFS were remited from support and edumtion groups in the Metropolitan Toronto area. They were compared to 24 healthy control participants (6 men and 1 8 women) recruited from the Graduate Department of Educaon at the University of Toronto. Each participant completed the Short Life Events and DifficuNes Interview. a social support interview, the Be& Depression Inventory (801). the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ), the Revised Aduit Attachrnent Scale (RAAS). and the Parental Bonding lnventory (PB1). Signficant differences were found between groups on the BDI, RAAS, and PB1 questionnaires. In addition, interview data revealed that in the year pnor to the onset of their illness, CFS participants experienoed significantly more stress and less support than heaithy control participants. A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conduded to investigate which of the variables in the present study were most predictive of CFS. Severe life stress was the only predidor variable that significantly distinguished between the two groups (Wald (1) = 4.84, p = .028), with the social support variable approaching significance in the equation (Wald (1) = 3.28, p = .070). Overall, the resulting regression equation correctiy ciassified 78.3% of the participants in the present study. A rnultifactorial model of CFS based on the findings of this study is presented. iii
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".