Twins Are Always Serving Science, What About Their Own Needs? Twins’ Need for Social Anxiety Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The effectiveness of the Social Anxiety Program on Adolescent Twins investigated in this study. Method: The study is a mixed-method study using a one-group pretest-posttest design, together with the qualitative method. First, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient used to find out the concordance and differentiation level of the twins’ social anxiety. Because monozygotic twins’ concordance rate is higher than dizygotic twins, four pair female monozygotic twins aged 17-18 participated in the group. Wilcoxon Single Ranks Test used to analyze the experimental part of the research. Three sessions of focus groups held after the program. Content analysis techniques used as a qualitative analysis. Result: As a result, there was a statistically significant difference between pre/post-program. Since this difference was in favor of initial measurement, the program interpreted as being effective. Themes also supported the quantitative results. Conclusion: Findings obtained from both experimental and qualitative parts discussed. Suggestions provided for future researcher.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".