MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336511919 · doi:10.18192/riss-ijhs.v5i1.1445

Etude Preliminaire Entre L’Attachement Amoureux et la Dramatisation Face a la Douleur chez des Individus Vivant Avec de la Douleur Chronique

2016· article· fr· W2336511919 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie-Ève Martel, Marie‐France Lafontaine, Christine Lévesque

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de cette étude préliminaire est d’examiner la perception du soutien offert par le partenaire amoureux comme médiateur de la relation entre l’attachement amoureux du patient (anxiété face à l’abandon et évitement de l’intimité) et la dramatisation de la douleur par ce dernier, de même que les liens directs entre ces variables. L’échantillon d'analyse comprend 46 adultes qui vivent quotidiennement avec de la douleur chronique et qui sont en relation de couple depuis au moins 6 mois. Les participants ont complété l’Experiences in Close Relationships, le Perceived Responsiveness Scale et le Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Les résultats indiquent que plus un individu a un attachement non sécurisant, moins il perçoit de soutien de son partenaire amoureux. L’anxiété face à l’abandon est associée à plus de dramatisation face à la douleur.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.453 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue interdisciplinaire des sciences de la santé - Interdisciplinary Journal of Health SciencesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207