The Comparison of Alexithymia and Spiritual Intelligence in Addicts, Addicts under Methadone Treatment, and Non-Addicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of the present study was to compare of the rate of alexithymia and spiritual intelligence in addicts, addicts under Methadone Treatment, and non-Addicts. Method: A causal-comparative research design was used. The study sample included 30 individuals under Methadone Treatment, 30 drug-dependent Addicted, and 30 non-addicted individuals selected by convenience sampling procedure. Toronto alexithymia scale and King's spiritual intelligence self-report inventory were administered among selected sample. Results: Findings revealed significant differences among addicted individuals and non-addicted adults also among individuals under methadone treatment and non-addicted adults in total alexithymia scores as well as on all three subscale scores. Furthermore, addicted individuals differed from those under methadone treatment in their scores on the subscale pertaining to difficulty in identifying feelings. Results also indicated differences among addicted individuals and those under methadone treatment in total spiritual intelligence and its four component scale scores, while addicted individuals differed from non-addicted individuals in total spiritual intelligence scores and only three of its component scale scores (personal meaning production, transcendental awareness, and conscious state expansion). Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate the advantages of the ability to control, emotional regulation and spiritual intelligence as a defense against addiction. By development of these characteristics addicts can be helped to gain relief from their addiction.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".