Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate alexithymia and perceived stress in nursing staff.Methods Nurses who were 18 to 45 years old were selected with clustered sampling method and finished the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS).Results TAS total sore ranged from 25 to 84.The incidence of critical state group and alexithymia group was respectively 38.5％ and 26.0％.There was no significant difference of alexithymia in nursing staff with different ages,education background and marital status.The total score of TAS-20 was significantly higher in general nurses than in nursing cadres,and the score of alexithymia factor was significantly higher in senior nurses than in junior nurses and in-charge nurses.The perceived stress was rising in non-alexithymia group,the critical state group and alexithymia group and the scores had significant difference.Conclusions There is a high incidence of alexithymia in nursing staff and more stress is perceived in nursing staff with alxithymia.More attention should be paid to and more psychological intervention should be given to younger nurses. Key words: Alexithymia; Perceived stress; Nursing staff
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 | 0.001 | 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".