MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2188073712

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALEXITHYMIA AND RESILIENCY WITH PREPARATION OF ADDICTION IN MALE STUDENTS

2015· article· en· W2188073712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hossein Rezasoltani, Mohammad Qamari, Asghar Jafari, Islamic Azad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAddictionPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Cluster samplingPsychiatryMedicinePopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at investigating the simple and multiple relationships between alexithymia and resiliency with addiction potential in in male students of Ferdowsi university of Mashhad. Two hundred and thirty male students were selected by cluster sampling from the Ferdowsi University (Iran). The scales used for this descriptive study were Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Connor and Davidson resiliency scale and Iranian Addiction Potential Scale (IAPS). Data analysis was performed using Pearson correlation and multiple regressions. There were simple and multiple relationships between alexithymia and resiliency and preparation of addiction. In other words, 41 percent of the total preparation of addiction variance could be explained by the predictive variable in this study. Alexithymia and resiliency predicted addiction potential in university students. The most important suggestion of this research was to pay attention scientifically to alexithymia and resiliency as a fundamental factor of this difficulty, rather than just emphasizing on the cessation of drug or alcohol using.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→