The Level of Prevalence of Irrational Beliefs among Drug Addicts in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to discover the prevalence of irrational beliefs among drug addicts in Jordan and find out the difference in the level of prevalence of these beliefs among them according to their educational qualifications and ages. And to achieve this, the descriptive survey approach was used, and the questionnaire was used as a tool to collect data. The study sample consisted of (103) addicts in Amman, who were chosen using the available sample method, and the data were collected using the irrational beliefs scale prepared by Ellis and translated (Al-Rihani, 1985). The results showed the prevalence of irrational beliefs among drug addicts in Jordan, at high levels in general, and a mean of (2.36). The results also showed that there are statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) on the scale of irrational beliefs and the areas (Cruel blaming of oneself and others, excessive anxiety, dependence, feeling helpless, and the importance of past experiences) attributed to the educational qualification variable. In contrast, there were no statistically significant differences on the scale of irrational beliefs and in all domains due to the age variable. The study recommended focusing on cognitive rebuilding in drug addicts to modify their irrational convictions and prepare treatment programs based on the theory of rational, emotional therapy to help specialists identify irrational beliefs and work to remove them in addicts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".