Emotion Recognition, Emotion Awareness, Metacognition, and Social Functioning in Persons with Schizophrenia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotion processing has received significant research attention in persons with schizophrenia. However, some aspects of this construct, such as emotion awareness, are less researched. In addition, there is limited work on metacognitive awareness and social functioning in persons with schizophrenia. METHODS: Our sample comprised of 27 participants with schizophrenia- and 26 nonclinical controls. The clinical group was assessed on Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms, Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Tool for Recognition of Emotions in Neuropsychiatric Disorders, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Metacognitive Assessment Scale, self-reflectiveness subscale of Beck's Cognitive Insight Scale, Scale S and Scale U subscales of the Metacognitive Assessment Scale, and Groningen's Social Dysfunction Scale. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: = 0.05, df = 51). There was no significant correlation between emotion recognition and metacognition in the clinical group. The presence of negative symptoms was significantly associated with social functioning in persons with schizophrenia. KEY MESSAGES: Clinical symptoms, in particular negative symptoms, play an important role in social functioning in persons with schizophrenia and it is necessary to address these along with social cognition in order to improve functioning.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it