MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attributional style of Egyptians with schizophrenia

2010· article· en· W1924929173 on OpenAlexaff
Mayar Elnakeeb, Samia Mohammed Abd-Eldayem, Maha Gaafar, Thandisizwe Redford Mavundla

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Style (visual arts)PsychologyClinical psychologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychiatryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The attributional style is one domain of social cognition that involves perceiving, interpreting, and generating responses to others' intentions and behaviours in different situations. This study describes the attributional style of Egyptians with schizophrenia. The study took place in a psychiatric hospital in Egypt. Eight psychiatric wards were randomly selected, and all participants (150) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia participated. Data were collected using the Ambiguous Intention Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ), the attributional style interview schedule, and the sociodemographic/clinical data sheet. Participants' scores on the AIHQ varied significantly between different situations (intentional, accidental, and ambiguous). The attributional style of the studied participants regarding their perceived psychosocial problems tended to be related to specific causes. These causes were mostly externally attributed to other people and to circumstances, and were perceived not to persist in the future. It would seem that Egyptians with schizophrenia tend to blame other people for negative events if these events are perceived to cause intentional harm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health NursingSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207