Relationship between alexithymia and impact of event of prison male offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relationship between the alexithymia and impact of event of the prison male offenders. Methods 267 male inmates in one prison of Tangshan and 99 men from students and general workers have been tested with Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised(IES-R). Results ① The alexithymia scores of prison male offenders were more higher except for the factor I(Prion: 18.62±3.61; general: 18.00±3.57)and factor III(prion: 14.38±3.06; general: 14.96±3.34). And there were significant differences in factor II(Prison : 22.26±3.96; general: 19.72±3.34), factor IV (prison : 22.38±4.20; general: 21.03 ±4.03)and the total score (prison : 77.65 ±7.22; general: 73.71±8.32)(P 0.05). There were significant differences in the evade dimension and the total score in impact of evens between the three different type prison male offenders. ③There were negative correlations between factor III and factor IV of alexithymia and every dimension of impact of events(r=-0.14~-0.22, P<0.05), there were positive correlations between factor I and factor II of alexithymia and every dimension of impact of events(r=0.14~0.43, P<0.05). Conclusion The degree of alexithymia in prison male offenders is higher than the general men. The violent male offenders are served more impact of events.The higher the degree of alexithymia of the prison male offenders, the more impaction of the event they served. Key words: Criminal psychology; Prison male offenders; Alexithymia; Impact of events
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".