MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3137539790 · doi:10.22051/psy.2021.33769.2349

نقش میانجی ناگویی هیجانی و اضطراب ناشی از کرونا در ارتباط بین تابآوری با تعارضات زناشویی

2021· article· fa· W3137539790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
علیرضا کاکاوند, فرهاد شیرمحمدی, عسل جعفری جوزانی, سمیرا حاجی امیدی

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefa
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of coronavirus and its subsequent quarantine, had social, economic, and psychological consequences. This study aimed to the mediation role of alexithymia and corona anxiety in the relationship between resilience and marital conflicts during quarantine. The design of the study is correlation through path analysis modeling. Among all student couples of Imam Khomeini International University in Qazvin in 2020, a sample of 100 volunteered couples were selected. Data were collected using Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire (Sanaei-Zakir), Toronto Alexithymia Questionnaire, Corona Anxiety Scale (Alipour, et al.) and Connor and Davidson Resilience Questionnaire and analyzed using structural equation model. Findings showed that alexithymia and corona anxiety play a mediator role between marital conflicts and resilience. Therefore, it can be concluded that by promoting resilience, the ability to deal with anxiety and emotion regulation increases, and consequently, problems such as marital conflicts decrease. The suggestion from these findings, should be to use the resilience promotion programs to deal with anxiety and related problems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.015

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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→