الأمية الانفعالية وعلاقتها بالميول العصابية لدى عينة من طلاب كلية العلوم بجامعة تشرين
Bibliographic record
Abstract
الأمية الانفعالية وعلاقتها بالميول العصابية لدى عينة من طلاب كلية العلوم بجامعة تشرين فاتن ثابت مشاعل هدف البحث الحالي إلى معرفة درجة انتشار الأمية الانفعالية لدى عينة من طلبة كلية العلوم بجامعة تشرين، والتعرف إلى الفروق بين الطلبة في درجة الأمية الانفعالية تبعا لمتغيري الجنس والعمر ومستوى هذه المتغيرة، باستخدام مقياسي تورنتو للأمية الانفعالية (26- TAS) وقائمة ويلوبي للميول العصابية. طبق البحث خلال الفصل الثاني من العام الدراسي ( 2017 – 2018) على عينة بلغت (258) طالبا وطالبة موزعة على (182) أقل من (22) سنة و(76) 22 سنة فأكثر، (122) ذكور و(136) إناث. أظهرت النتائج وجود فروق دالة بين الطلاب والطالبات في درجة الأمية الانفعالية لصالح الطلاب الذكور، كذلك وجدت فروق دالة بين طلاب السنة الأولى وطلاب الدراسات العليا لصالح طلاب السنة الأولى. وأظهرت الدراسة وجود نسبة مقدارها (37.61%) من أفراد عينة الدراسة ترتفع لديها مؤشرات الأمية الانفعالية، وأظهر تحليل التباين تزايد الميول العصابية بتزايد درجة الأمية الانفعالية حيث ظهرت فروق دالة في الميول العصابية بين مجموعة الأمية الانفعالية المنخفضة والمتوسطة، والمنخفضة والعالية، والمتوسطة والعالية. The study aimed to discovering the relation between alexithymia and neuroticism in a Sample of students in Science College at Tishreen University. It aimed to recognizing differences of alexithymia degree among them due to both sex and age variables . And the level of this variable. The alexithymia scale and Willoughby scale are applied to (258) students for the academic year ( 2017- 2018) divided on (182) less of 22 year and (76) more than (22) year . The following statistical methods were used: percent, means, T – Test, and Pearson correlation.. The results showed significant differences between male and female students of alexithymia degree in favour of the male, thus significant differences were found between first year students and high studies students of alexithymia degree in favour of the first year students. The variance analysis highlighted the increasing of the neuroticism by increasing of alexithymia degree. Where significant differences appeared in neuroticism feature among a group of low and the middle, the low and the high, the middle and the high alexithymia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.279 | 0.263 |
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".