MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136654821

Alexithymia, Depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as Predictors of Cynicism among Internally Displaced Persons (IDPS) in Benue State, Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3136654821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olukayode Ayooluwa Afolabi, Uba Donald Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueIFE PsychologIA · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCynicismAlexithymiaPsychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryTraumatic stressPoliticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined alexithymia, depression and PTSD as predictors of cynicism among IDPs in refugee camps in Makurdi, Benue State. The study made use of primary source of data. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted for this study. Measures used were; Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Becks Depression Inventory (BDI), Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and Cynicism Scale (CS). The result showed alexithymia (β =0.20; t = 3.95, p < 0.05) and PTSD (β = 0.47; t =9.57, p < 0.01) significantly predicted cynicism while, depression (β = -0.1; t = -.19, p < 0.01) did not predict cynicism. Implications of the study portend improvements in policy formation. Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that psycho-education for the IDPs is essential to prepare them for life after prolonged displacement. Engaging more IDPs across different camps located within the six geo-political zones in Nigeria should be considered in future research. Keywords: alexithymia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, cynicism, internally displaced persons

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFE PsychologIASame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207