MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565628669 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n1p18

Histrionic Women in Iran: A Qualitative Study of the Couple Interactive Pathology of the Women with Symptoms of Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD)

2016· article· en· W2565628669 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minasadat AlaviHejazi, Maryam Fatehizade, Fatemeh Bahrami, Ozra Etemadi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityAffect (linguistics)Interpersonal communicationQualitative researchBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyPersonality disordersSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of factors contribute to causes the couple’s vulnerabilities, including the personality traits that affect the couple’s healthy relationships. This study mainly aims to identify the couple’s vulnerabilities, notably women, with symptoms of the histrionic personality disorder. This is a qualitative study with a content analysis approach. The data collection process consists of 17 semi-structured interviews with the therapists, men with histrionic spouses, and the women with histrionic personality disorder, and using the related literature. The sampling process started purposefully and continued until data saturation. The data analysis led to the extraction of three categories including functional vulnerabilities, relationship vulnerabilities, and emotional vulnerabilities. Findings showed that personality traits of a histrionic woman dramatically affect the obvious individual behaviors and interpersonal relationships including couple’s relationships.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207