MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402430337 · doi:10.23977/appep.2024.050514

The Influence of Alexithymia on Social Anxiety of Senior High School Students

2024· article· en· W4402430337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied & Educational Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologySocial anxietyAnxietyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To analyze the current situation of high school students' alexithymia and social anxiety, and on this basis, to explore the effect of alexithymia on social anxiety. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Social Anxiety Scale (SAS-A) was used as instruments to measure and analyze 1,736 high school students in the city of W. (1) The high percentage of high school students in the high subgroup of alexithymia difficulties was higher at 59.68%, and 66.65% of high school students had a social anxiety score > 30.11; (2) High school girls had significantly higher total alexithymia scores than boys (p < 0.05), non-only children had higher total alexithymia scores than only children (p < 0.001), and high school girls had significantly higher social anxiety scores than boys (p < 0.001); (3) High school students' alexithymia and social anxiety were significantly positively correlated (r = 0.496, p < 0.01), and all three dimensions of alexithymia were significantly positively correlated with all three dimensions of social anxiety; (4) The coefficient of determination of alexithymia on social anxiety was 0.284. Alexithymia is an important influence on social anxiety in high school students.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.425 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied & Educational PsychologySame topicProblem Solving Skills DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207