Study on the alexithymia of nursing students and its influencing factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To discuss the alexithymia of nursing students in both independent college and public university and its influencing factors.Methods The twenty-item toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20),general health questionnaire (GHQ-20) and general self-efficacy scale (GSES) were used to investigate 152 junior nursing students from public university (Xinxiang Medical University) and 121 junior nursing students form independent college (Sanquan College).Results Totals of 152 questionnaires were handed out in Xinxiang Medical University and 138 were recovered,with the rate of 90.79％.Totals of 121 questionnaires were handed out in Sanquan College and 117 were recovered,with the rate of 96.69％.The score of TAS-20,emotional description incapability and emotional recognition incapability was (52.46 ± 8.78),(18.56 ± 4.68),(13.45 ±2.83) in Xinxiang nursing students,and (49.33 ± 7.74),(16.49 ± 3.69),(12.48 ± 2.38) in Sanquan nursing students,and the difference was statistically significant (t =2.993,3.874,2.997,respectively; P ＜ 0.05).The alexithymia of Xinxiang nursing students was negatively related to self-affirmation and self-efficacy (P ＜ 0.05),while the alexithymia of Sanquan nursing students was not only negatively related to self-affirmation and self-efficacy,but also positively related to anxiety (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Nursing students in public university has more serious alexithymia than nursing students in independent college. Key words: Students, nursing; Alexithymia; Independent college ; Public university
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".