MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387471298 · doi:10.14686/buefad.1196425

Examination of The Relationship Between University Students' Alexithymia Symptoms, Personality Types and Internet Use Behaviors

2023· article· en· W4387471298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Özlem ŞENER, Süleyman Kahraman

Bibliographic record

VenueBartın University Journal of Faculty of Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaNeuroticismPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleExtraversion and introversionPersonalityEysenck Personality QuestionnaireClinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsPredictive powerScale (ratio)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this study is to examine the relationship between university students' alexithymia symptoms, personality traits and internet use attitudes. The predictive power of personality types and internet use behaviors on alexithymia levels was examined. In addition, differences in the scores of alexithymia and personality types according to various demographic variables were examined. The study group consisted of 322 undergraduate students studying in four different universities in Istanbul. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Eysenck Personality Brief Scale were used to collect data. According to the results obtained from the study, there was a significant relationship between alexithymia scores and personality types, while neuroticism and extraversion were found to have significant predictive power on alexithymia scores. The findings were discussed within the framework of the literature and various suggestions were presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBartın University Journal of Faculty of EducationSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207