MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196611988 · doi:10.21554/hrr.042001

SERBIAN ADAPTATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MINDEDNESS SCALE - PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS SAMPLE

2020· article· en· W3196611988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivan Anđelković

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Human Research in Rehabilitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerbianPsychologyAlexithymiaScale (ratio)Sample (material)Adaptation (eye)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the quality criteria and the factor structure of the Serbian translation of the Psychological Mindedness Scale (PMS) (Shill and Lumley, 2002). In this paper we offer the detailed description of the translation and validation procedures we fallowed. Psychological Mindedness outlines the interest as well as the ability of an individual to introspectively reflect on emotions and conflicts. The sample consisted of 166 university students. Results indicate good psychometric propperties. Internal consitancy is good. Explorative factor analysis suggested that a four factor solution is better that the original five factor, because of fewer cross-loadings and better content validity of the factors. Good convergent validity was demonstrated by a strong negative correlation between the whole PMS, and all four factors separately, and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Perspectives for further improvement of the instrument and its application in therapeutic process are discussed in the conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Human Research in RehabilitationSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207