MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253316242 · doi:10.1375/jsc.3.2.81

Emotional Awareness and Alexithymia in Smokers Seeking Help for Cessation: A Clinical Analysis

2008· article· en· W2253316242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Solange Carton, Sophie Bayard, Céline Jouanne, G Lagrue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Smoking Cessation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScaleSensation seekingPsychologyBoredomTraitClinical psychologyScale (ratio)PopulationSmoking cessationPersonalitySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The construct of emotional awareness refers to attending to, identifying, differentiating, and labelling emotions in oneself and in others. Forty-two smokers were evaluated before they stopped smoking and also filled out the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). Subjects had low levels of emotional awareness and their scores on the emotional components of the TAS-20 were high in comparison to the general French population. No relationship was found between TAS-20 and LEAS, which confirms that these scales measure complementary dimensions of emotional processing that are only partially linked. Whereas sensation seeking was lower in self-rated alexithymic subjects, high scores on Boredom Susceptibility and total SSS among women were related to low LEAS scores. The results highlighted impairment of emotion processing in these subjects. Their state versus trait status is discussed, as well as their defensive functions. Treatment targeting emotional abilities enhancement for these subjects, as in other addictions, may help improve treatment of tobacco dependence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Smoking CessationSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207