Relationship among alexithymia,coping styles and the depression among undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo explore the relationship of the alexithymia,coping styles and depression among undergraduates.MethodsA total of 733 undergraduates were surveyed by Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS),Trait Coping Style Questionnaire(TCSQ) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale(CES-D).ResultsNo statistically significant difference by genders was found in the scores of depression of undergraduates.The scores of depression of undergraduates from rural area was significantly higher than those from urban area(P0.05).The undergraduates self-reported poor economic condition got significantly higher scores of depression than those self-reported good economic condition.A 38% variance of depression could be explained by alexithymia and coping styles after controlling the demographic variables.Alexithymia and coping styles had direct effects on depression,furthermore,alexithymia had indirect effects on depression through coping styles,and the proportions of indirect effects were respectively 19.7% and 27.9% of the total through positive and negative coping styles.ConclusionAlexithymia and coping styles might have direct effects on depression,moreover,coping styles can mediate the relationships between alexithymia and depression as a mediated variable.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".