The relationship between impulsive behavior and alexithymia in pupils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the relationship between impulsive behavior and alexithymia in pupils in Changsha. Methods 702 pupils were tested with Barratt impulsivity scale (BIS-11) and Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20). Results (1) Male pupils had significantly higher scores of total BIS and non-planning impulsiveness than female (24.47±5.30 vs 23.40±5.59, P<0.05; 62.25±9.46 vs 60.35±9.91, P<0.05). Pupils in elder age group had only significantly higher total score of BIS than pupils in younger age group (total: 62.36±9.69 vs 60.29±9.68, P<0.01). (2)Pupils with high impulsivity had significantly higher scores of total and factor scores of alexithymia than pupils with low impulsivity (total: 57.43±10.16 vs 46.55±8.77, P<0.01). The total scores of BIS were positively correlated with total scores of alexithymia (r=0.40, P<0.01) and factor scores of alexithymia (r=0.25~0.33, P<0.01). Stepwise regression analysis revealed that total scores of BIS explained by DIF, DDF and EOT were 18%. Conclusion There are certain gender and age differences in impulsivity impulsive behavior of 8 to 13 years old pupils. There exist the low to moderate correlations between impulsivity and alexithymia in pupils. Key words: Impulsivity; Alexithymia; Pupil
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".