MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2659276712 · doi:10.22037/sdh.v3i1.17158

Study of alexithymia among people with low distress tolerance compared to non-clinical sample

2017· article· en· W2659276712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sajjad Heydarian, Edris azami, Afshar Sahraei, Akbar Mohammadi, Mohsen Rezaei

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaClinical psychologyDistressPsychologyPersonalityFeelingPopulationMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Alexithymia is a personality construct described as an asymptomatic clinical disability to identify and describe individual feelings. Individuals with alexithymia have difficulties regarding distress tolerance. The present research aimed at studying alexithymia among people with low distress tolerance in comparison to non-clinical sample. Methods: The study population consisted of all male employees working for General Education Office of Kermanshah Province, Iran. A total of 300 individuals from among these employees were selected based on Morgan table using multistep clustering method. Demographic data questionnaire, Toronto alexithymia scale, and distress tolerance questionnaire were used for data collection. Results: Mean (SD) score for tolerance, attracting, Assessment and Regulation were 7.3 (2.74), 8.4 (3.20), 16.8 (4.99), and 6.7 (2.63), respectively, in the normal group and 22.54 (6.07), 17 (4.28), 30.67 (6.65), and 30.50 (74.6) in the group with low distress tolerance. independent t-test showed that low distress tolerance group had significantly higher score regarding tolerance, absorption, evaluation, and regulation in comparison with the normal group (P<0.001). Conclusion: Findings of the present study can help psychologists and counsellors to pay more attention in alexithymia among people with Low Distress Tolerance to help them for better adaptability and confrontation ability against life difficulties such as distress, and ultimately for better 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207