Mediating effects of self feeling of inadequacy between resilience and alexithymia in depressive undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the relationship among resilience, self feeling of inadequacy and alexithymia in depressive undergraduates, and to provide a theoretical basis for the prevention and intervention of depression among undergraduates. Methods 500 undergraduates of two universities in Hebei Province were collected by cluster sampling method.Beck depression scale, adolescent resilience scale, Toronto alexithymia scale and self feeling of inadequacy scale were applied to undergraduates. The survey results were analyzed statistically. Results The detection rate of depression was 28%(119/426) in undergraduates. Total score of Alexithymia Scale(69.99±9.43) was higher than the norm(65.70±7.98), and the difference was statistical significant (P 0.05). Self feeling of inadequacy was positively correlated with alexithymia (P<0.05). Resilience was negatively correlated with self feeling of inadequacy and alexithymia(P<0.05). For the depressive undergraduates, self feeling of inadequacy served as a full mediator between the resilience and alexithymia, whereas for the non depression undergraduates it was a partial mediator. Conclusion Depression undergraduates have serious alexithymia, serious self feeling of inadequacy and poor resilience. Self feeling of inadequacy serves as a mediator between the resilience and alexithymia in depressive and non-depressive undergraduates. Key words: Depression; Alexithymia; Resilience; Self feeling of inadequacy; Undergraduates
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".