THE LEVEL OF RUMINATIVE THOUGHT AND ALEXITHYMIA OF PEOPLE IN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic process caused many physiological and psychological effects on individuals. This study aims to examine the ruminative thinking and alexithymia levels of people in the COVID-19 pandemic process. METHODS: The descriptive, cross-sectional, and the correlational designed study was conducted with 852 people in ?stanbul\Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic process between March and May 2020. The data of the research was collected with the Sociodemographic Form Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire. RESULTS: It was found that the average of ruminative thought score of the people was 92.49±19.89 and the alexithymia score average was 71.76±13.70. A positive and significant relationship was found between the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and subscale scores (p<0.05). According to the results, ruminative thinking levels were affected by 12% alexithymia level and 9% time spent on conversation. A statistically significant relationship was found between rumination, alexithymia, and its sub-dimensions and the number of times people spend for conversation during the day and the number of people they live with (p<0.05). It was determined that those living with family/friends were lower than those who were alone, and those with good communication in relationships had lower rumination and alexithymia (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Care should be taken against alexithymia and rumination during the COVID-19 pandemic process, and attention should be given to interpersonal relationships, conversation, and communication in the quarantine process.
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 | 0.001 | 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".