Relation between Metacognitive Abilities and Motivation among Patients with Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Difficulties with metacognitive abilities among patients with schizophrenia have serious effects on wellness, psychosocial challenges, recovery process and motivation. Some studies reported that higher levels of motivation do not emerge without a basic level of metacognition. Aim: To explore the relation between metacognitive abilities and motivation in patient with schizophrenia spectrum. Subjects and Method: Design: Descriptive correlational design. Setting: Inpatient psychiatric department of Tanta University Hospital and Psychiatry outpatient clinic. Subjects: A convenience sample of 100 patients with schizophrenia. Tools: Socio-demographic and Clinical characteristics, Motivational Traits Questionnaire and Metacognition Questionnaire-MCQ. Results: There was a highly statistical significant positive correlation between metacognition and motivation. Conclusion: It was concluded that motivation might be significantly improved when targeting the metacognitive abilities. Recommendation: This study recommended that metacognitive abilities should be assessed routinely for patients with schizophrenia. Psychotherapeutic intervention that could improve motivation in patients with schizophrenia should focus on stimulating metacognitive abilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".