Comparison of Alexithymia in Athlete and Non-Athlete Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, researchers consider sports as one of the methods of reinforcement in the development of psychological parameters. The aim of the present study was to compare the alexithymia and its components, in athletes and non-athletic adolescents. Its components consist of difficulty in identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty in describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT). The statistical sample of the research included 100 athlete students and 100 nonathlete students, who were selected using multistage cluster sampling. They were asked to fill out the Farsi version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. The obtained results showed that there were significant differences in the mean scores of the alexithymia and its three components: difficulty in identifying feelings, difficulty in describing and externally oriented thinking in both groups (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). The results revealed that athletic students had less emotional problems than non-athlete students; it is recommended that physical activity be part of the strategies to improve emotional health among non-athletic students.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".