Study on the relativity among the attachment type,alexitymia and defense style of anxiety patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the attachment type,the level of alexitymia and the defense style of anxiety patients in Chengdu and their relativity.Methods Applied Adult Attachment Scale(AAS-1996 Revised Edition),Toronto alexithymia scale(TAS) and Defense Style Questionnaire(DSQ) to evaluate 32 anxiety patients and 110 control group participants,and gave an analysis.Results The scores of close and dependence are lower than the control group,while the score of anxiety is higher than the control group.The score of alexitymia is significantly higher than the control group,in which the factor Ⅰ and factor Ⅱ are higher than the control group,while the factor Ⅲ is lower than the control group.The defense styles of anxiety patients with different attachment type are significantly different,while anxiety patients with secure attachment use less defense mechanism than insecure attachment.There is a significant relativity between the anxiety patients′ emotional disorder and the defense mechanism they use.Conclusion There are relativities among the attachment type,alexitymia and defense style of anxiety patients.They have insecure attachment,high level of alexithymia and immature defense style.The psychotherapy of the anxiety patients should be used to help them change the defense style on the basis of their characteristics of personality to improve their level of mental health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".