Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives : Obesity which causing many physical and psychological problems is difficult to treatment. Although many researches have found that genetic factor is the key factor of obesity, there is a few research about the environment of representing the genetic type or the role of life attitude. The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between Body Mass Index(BMI hereafter), alexithymia, coping scale and self-esteem of women in obesity clinic to set up the method of preventing obesity. Methods : One hundred seven women, aged 19 through 40 years who were in treatments at G obesity clinic in Seoul and Ajou university hospital were surveyed by a questionnaire which was designed for this research. In addition the Korean version of the alexithymia, coping scale, self esteem scale. And then the height and weight of those children were measured and the BMI was calculated, Results : 1) There is no significant difference between abnormal and normal weight group about the factor Ⅰ, factor Ⅱ and factor Ⅲ of alexithymia scale. 2) The results of coping scale show that the value of active-cognitive coping scale score is significantly higher in normal weight group relative to abnormal weight group(p＜0.05). The scores of avoidance coping is significantly higher in abnormal weight group relative to normal weight group(p＜0.05). Although there is no significant difference between abnormal and normal weight group about the score of active-behavioral coping scale, normal weight group shows higher tendency. 3) The result of self-esteem scale shows that the score of self-esteem is significantly higher in abnormal weight group relative to normal weight group(p＜0.05). Conclusion : We can conclude that alexithymia may be the reason for a subgroup of obesity women and the women who take avoidance, inactive cognitive and behavioral coping can be obese in high possibility. Also normal weight women who visited obesity clinic shows low self-esteem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".