Explaining generalized anxiety disorder based on cognitive regulation strategies of emotion, poor understanding of emotions and thought-action combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalized anxiety disorder is influenced by different emotional and cognitive components. The purpose of this study was to simultaneously investigate the role of cognitive regulation strategies of emotion, poor understanding of emotions, and thought-action combination in patients suffering from generalized anxiety disorder. The correlational method of the study was used in this study and the sample included 120 patients suffering from generalized anxiety disorder selected among the patients of four psychiatric centers in the city of Shiraz through available Sampling. The Cognitive Regulation Strategies Of Emotion questionnaires (Garnefsky et al, 2001), Beck’s Anxiety (1988), Thoughts Combination Instrument (Wells et al, 2001) and Toronto’s 20 Alexithymia Scale (Begbi et al, 1994) were used to collect data. The results showed that there was a significant and positive relationship between the difficulty in identifying and describing emotions, non-adaptive/maladaptive emotions regulation strategies and thought-action combination with generalized anxiety disorder. Stepwise Regression Analysis indicated that the difficulty in identifying emotions, non-adaptive emotions regulation strategies and the difficulty in describing emotions are
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".