The Relationship between Personality Styles of Sociotropy and Autonomy and Suicidal Tendency in Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aim was investigating the relationship between personality styles of autonomy and sociotropy, and suicidal behavior at Zahedan University of medical sciences' medical students. This was a descriptive correlational study. The population consisted of all medical students at Zahedan University of Medical Sciences internship period 2002-2003. The number of samples was 102 patients, including 47 males and 55 females. To collect information, the personal style inventory (PSI) with 48 items. Twenty four items to assess sociotropy, 24 items to assess autonomy, and to measure suicide the suicidal subscale (MMPI) with 21 items were used. The two scales had the content validity and for the reliability used Cronbach a. So the reliability of the personality styles is 0.84 and the reliability of the suicidal subscales is 0.83. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation methods. The results showed that there is an inverse and significant relation between autonomic style and trends of suicide in men (P = 0.02, r = -0.43), but no association between sociotropy and suicidal tendencies were observed in men. There was no significant relationship between autonomy and sociotropy personality styles and tendency towards suicide in women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".