Schizophrenia, autoimmune diseases and human leucocyte antigens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Détecter les personnalités « à risque » impliquées dans des sports dangereux revêt un enjeu important pour la prévention. Des études portant sur la conduite automobile ou les pratiques professionnelles à risque mettent en avant des variables de personnalité en lien avec une prise de risque excessive. Les variables les plus pertinentes ont été testées afin de déterminer celles qui discriminent le mieux les sportifs les plus imprudents : anxiété (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, 1983), recherche de sensations (Sensation Seeking Scale V, 1978), alexithymie (Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20, 1994), autorégulation (Risk and Excitement Inventory, 1997). Deux données sur les sept discrimineraient et expliqueraient l'imprudence des sportifs : la variable alexithymique « difficulté à identifier ses sentiments » et la variable d'autorégulation « fuite de la conscience de soi ». Ces résultats mettent donc en avant l'importance des données émotionnelles pour appréhender les pratiques sportives imprudentes: les sujets alexithymiques qui n'arrivent pas à comprendre leurs sentiments vont rechercher de façon impulsive des stimulations afin de se réguler. La « fuite de la conscience de soi » confirme le besoin de ne plus penser à ses affects négatifs - non régulés - en se concentrant sur les sensations positives apportées par les pratiques sportives.Detecting high-risk personalities involved in hazardous sports is essential to develop prevention ; studies on automobile driving or risky professional activities highlight excessive risk-taking personality variables.The most pertinent variables were tested so as to determine those most relevant to imprudent sportspeople : anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, 1983), sensation-seeking (Sensation-Seeking Scale V, 1978), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, 1994), and self-regulation (Risk and Excitement Inventory, 1997).Following an exploratory incremental ascendant discrimination analysis and various step-to-step incremental regression analyses, only two variables out of the seven tested stand out. The « difficulty to identify feelings » alexithymic variable [λ de Wilks = 0,23, p < 0,001 & R2 change = 0,57 ; F(2,85) = 125,61, p < 0,001] and the « self-conscience escape » self-regulation variable [λ de Wilks = 0,18, p < 0,05 & R2 change = 0,52 ; F(2,85) = 101,81, p < 0,001] appear to best discriminate and explain sportspeople's imprudence. Neither anxiety nor « danger and adventure seeking », among others, are significant. These results show how taking emotional data into account is essential to understand careless sport activities better. In keeping with drug addiction data, alexithymic subjects that cannot understand their feelings impulsively seek regulating stimulations. Indeed, our data confirm that « escapists » who forget their « self-conscience » in alcohol, drugs or parties, also practice strong sensation sports (43 % of snowboarders).It would appear that, in all instances, they seek positive sensations in a compulsive and uncontrolled manner, to forget about their negative affects. That would explain their carelessness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".