MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Alexithymia on Self-Compassion through Cultural and Gender Factors: A Study across Culture in Seven Arab Countries

2024· article· en· W4400301458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Psychological Studies [JEPS] · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The study aimed to identify the prevalence of alexithymia, the nature of the relationship between it and self-compassion, and the differences between alexithymia, culture, gender, and the interaction between them on the dimensions of self-compassion in seven Arab societies, to achieve the aim of the study, the descriptive, correlational approach was used. The sample consisted of (N= 2265); their ages ranged between (18-60) years, who were applied to the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. and the Self Compassion Scale.The results showed a difference in the prevalence of alexithymia, which ranged between (26.2% - 49%), and it reached (36.7%) in the total sample, Moreover, the relationships between alexithymia and self-compassion also varied, and the total sample showed a positive relationship between alexithymia and self-judgment, isolation, and Over-identification. Furthermore, alexithymia influenced the dimensions of self-compassion, especially the negative dimensions, and alexithymic people were higher in self-judgment, isolation, and self-identification. The largest effect size was the effect of alexithymia on self-judgment, as the differences were attributed to alexithymia at a rate of (13.4%), and these differences were not isolated from the influence of culture, as the results showed an interaction of the factors of alexithymia and culture in varying the dimensions of self-compassion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Psychological Studies [JEPS]Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207