MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1823947810

La relazione tra alessitimia e locus of control: uno studio empirico su 260 soggetti

2002· article· it· W1823947810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giuseppina Mastrobuoni, Luigi De Gennaro, Luigi Solano

Bibliographic record

VenueRassegna di psicologia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaLocus of controlPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScalePersonalityDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between two dimensions of personality, that is Alexithymia measured by TAS 20 and Locus of control measured by I-E Scale, has been assessed in present study. It has been hypothesized that alexithymic subjets, characterized by a deficiency in emotional processing, should be more external, with a tendency to hold the external world responsi-ble for any event, interfering in such way with cognitive processes that prevent risk behav-iors.The present study has been carried out on 260 students of Psychology courses, who anonymously filled out the italian version of TAS 20 and I-E Scale. According to the hypothesis, subjects scoring higher on alexithymia also showed more external locus of control. Furthermore, the effect of age and gender on alexithymia and lo-cus of control was also assessed. With regard to gender, Difficulty in identifying affects (the 1st factor measured by TAS 20) was higher for females as compared to males. No significant gender difference was found on locus of control, and no relationship was significant between age, and I-E and TAS 20 scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRassegna di psicologia→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→