Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p style="text-align: justify;">Gelotophobia is a fear of ridicule, that manifests both as part of anxiety and depressive disorders, and independently. The study finds out whether some features of recognition and control of expression are limited to the area of positive emotions or manifest themselves in the regulation of other emotions with gelotophobia. The results of self-reporting and test methods for assessing the understanding of emotions, as well as direct and indirect measurements of the ability to control emotions, are compared, and an interference effect of alexithymia is controlled. In total 235 subjects took a part (M<sub>age</sub>=17,95, SD<sub>age</sub>=1,78), among whom 181 female and 54 male students of the humanities answered questionnaires Emotional Intelligence (EI), Ways of coping (WCQ) of Lazarus, Questionnaire of Gelotophobia (GELOPH-15), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), attributional style questionnaire of Seligman) and did tests (Video Test of Lysin and Ovsyannikova, timing of emotion naming). Quantitative comparative analysis, correlation, and regression analysis were used. The results indicate that some characteristic properties of recognition and control of emotions associated with gelotophobia extend to some other emotions (sadness, but not fear and anger). The reduction in recognition and control of emotions in gelotophobia manifests only through self-reporting methods, while tests show minimal differences depending on gelotophobia grade and their derived character. The accuracy of recognition decreases with gelotophobia grade only when the recognition time is limited. The reduction of control manifests only in the rarer use of Avoidance coping, which is associated with a lower evaluation of the ability to control achieving success and avoiding failure by the individual. the conviction of the individual.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 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".