Piercings and tattoos: psychopathological aspects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Piercing and tattoos are promoted by fashion and the media and are becoming more and more popular, especially among young people. The number of young adults acquiring body modification has increased in recent years. Different studies showed a correlation between body modification and self-harm behaviors. The present study investigates the correlation between piercing and tattoo and different psychological and personality disorders. METHODS: The study involved 121 samples (age years 23.78 with 3.999 SD – standard deviation). From 121 involved samples, 60 (29 females, 31 males) had not body modifications, 25 have acquired tattoos (48 females, 21 males) and 36 have acquired piercing (24 females, 12 males). All subjects were evaluated using inventory auto somministration. The following tests we re performed: Psychological General WellBeing Index (PGWBI), the Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), the Borderline Syndrome Index (BSI), the Dissociative Experience Scale (DES II), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS20). Data were statistically analyzed by SPSS Tool using one way ANOVA for normally distributed samples, Chi-Square Test and Cross-Tabulation Test. RESULTS: The statistical analysis of acquired results showed a signific ant correlation between body modifications and psychological and personality disorder and psychopathologies. TAS-20 test results highlighted a significant difference between tattoo and piercing groups and control group (F=29.066; p=0.000). The tattoo group showed results closed to alexithymic values. The SHI test proved a significant difference between groups related to self-harm behaviors too (F=80.416; p=0.000). PGWBI results suggest a link between body modification and psychological goodness (F=19.522; p=0.000): precisely the body modifications affect negatively the psychological goodness. The ANOVA clearly shows a significant correlation between piercing and tattoo groups and psychological distress. As regards the dissociative disorder evaluation, while the DES II test results of all groups are within the healthy people common range; however the ANOVA highlights a significant trend towards dissociative disorder limit for piercing and tattoo groups. The ANOVA statistical evaluation of BSI test results provides evidence of borderline disorders on piercing group samples. The tattoo group lays on the test healthy range but the results show a significant higher mean value on the tattoo group compared with control group. Chi-square test, used to highlight all possible connections between analyzed variabconfirmed a significant correlation only between PGWBI results and number of tattoos and piercing and between gender and body modification type, tattoos prevail on male samples while piercing on female ones. CONCLUSION: The study successfully achieved the propos ed objectives, proving statistically
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 it