نقش تعدیلکنندة ناگویی طبعی در رابطة بین روانبنههای هیجانی و باورهای نارسایی عملکرد جنسی در زنان و مردان مبتلا به دیابت
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since sexual relationship itself is an emotional excitement, one must study it in the context of emotions. Therefore, learning about the manner in which the two important psychological variables of alexithymia and emotional schemas relate and influence sexual dysfunction becomes important. The aim of this study was to examine the moderating role of alexithymia on the relationship between emotional schemas and sexual dysfunctional beliefs in women and men with diabetes. Descriptive correlational methodology was used for this study. A total of 152 individuals (78 women, 74 men) diagnosed with diabetes were selected in person and online, through convenient sampling, who completed Leahy emotional schema scale (LESS, 2002), Farsi Toronto alexithymia scale (FTAS-20, 1994), and sexual dysfunction beliefs questionnaire (SDBQ, 2003) during a 3 month period. For data analysis, Pearson correlation and regression adjustment was used. Results of this research showed a significant positive correlation between emotional schemas and sexual dysfunctional beliefs and alexithymia and sexual dysfunctional beliefs (p=0/01). Regression analysis indicated that alexithymia played a moderating role between emotional schemas and sexual dysfunctional beliefs (p=0/05). From the research findings, it can be concluded that the link between emotional schemas and sexual dysfunctional beliefs is not merely a simple linear relationship, but can be influenced by alexithymia. Keywords: emotional schemas, alexithymia, sexual dysfunctional beliefs, diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.043 |
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".