The comparison of defense styles, alexithymia and maladaptive schema in asthmatic group and normal group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have examined defensive styles, emotional failure, and maladaptive schemas, and the relationship between these variables, but a study that compares defensive styles, emotional disharmony, and maladaptive schemas in people with asthma and normal people is neglected. remained. Aims: To compare defensive styles, emotional inadequacies, and maladaptive schemas in people with asthma and normal individuals. Method: The present study was causal-comparative. The statistical population of the present study was all people with asthma who had referred to Razi and occupational medicine clinics in Yazd in the spring and summer of 1398, as well as people working in clinics and family members of people with asthma. 100 people with asthma and 100 normal people aged 38 to 62 years were selected as available and targeted sampling. Research tools include the Andros et al. (1993) Defensive Styles Questionnaire, the Toronto Emotional Disappointment Scale (1994), and the Young Project Schedule (1998). Data analysis was performed using multivariate analysis of variance. Results: There is a significant difference between people with asthma and normal people in undeveloped defensive style, emotional failure and maladaptive schema (p< 0/01). Conclusions: Untreated defensive style, emotional distress and maladaptive schemas increase the risk of developing asthma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".