Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since alexithymia and the health locus of control are constructs with individual health effects, the main goal of this study was to examine their association. The specific objectives were to examine the relationship between the degree of alexithymia and anxiety/depression, to investigate the degree of sympathetic activation, and to determine objective predictors of alexithymia. The research was conducted at the Clinics for Psychiatry and Internal Medicine of the University Hospital Center Rijeka on a sample of 100 subjects, divided into two groups: patients with anxiety and patients with psychosomatic disorders. The following instruments were used: Sociodemographic Survey, Toronto Alexithymia Scale - 26, Hopkins - 25 Symptom Scale, and Questionnaire to Examine Perceived Source of Health Control. A manual blood pressure monitor and stethoscope were used for blood pressure measurement, the heart rate was measured with a pulse oximeter, and the respiratory rate by direct observation of the researcher. Consistent with the objectives, there was a statistically significant positive association between alexithymia, the external locus of health control, anxiety and depression. Individuals with a higher degree of alexithymia showed a preserved autonomic emotional response. It was found that lower education, higher levels of depression/anxiety and the presence of a more pronounced external locus of health control are objective indicators of alexithymia. Since alexithymia affects the ability of coping with health problems, it is important to identify patients with its characteristics, to provide them with (therapeutic) support in order to achieve the most favorable treatment outcomes and quality of life.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".