Forgiveness, guilt, and shame in alcohol dependence: A comparative study in a Turkish sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of the present study was to compare individuals with and without alcohol dependence in terms of forgiveness, shame, and guilt. A further purpose was to investigate the association of shame and guilt with alcohol dependence. Methods: Fifty-five individuals with and 55 without alcohol dependence (based on ICD-10 criteria) were compared using the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS), and Trait Shame and Guilt Scale (TSGS). Results: Individuals with alcohol dependence showed a significantly lower level of self-forgiveness, pride and a significantly higher level of both shame and guilt than the non-alcohol dependent group in the univariate analysis. However, only guilt was related to the presence of alcohol dependence in the multivariate analysis. Self-forgiveness was negatively correlated with both shame and guilt in the alcohol-dependent individuals, but not among individuals without alcohol use problems. Conclusions: The findings of this study support the importance of the self-conscious emotions of shame and guilt in alcohol dependence, together with self-forgiveness. These psychological states should be considered in the treatment of alcohol dependence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".