Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to compare emotion regulation skills among elder adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease and normal elders.In this cross-sectional study, which was of causal-comparative type, the researchers visited the Iran Alzheimer Association and randomly chose 19elder adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease aged 60 years or older and 19 normal elders matched by the elders adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease.The mentioned two groups were tested using Mini Mental Status Examination.A Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale (Gratz and Roemer, 2004) was used to examine the emotion regulation.Regarding the hypothesis testing, based on comparison between emotional self-regulation among elder adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease and normal elders, the results of one-way ANOVA test indicated that these two groups were completely different in terms of emotional self-regulation.Accordingly, the elder adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease had more difficulty than normal elders in regulating their emotions.Regarding the variables of the difficulties in emotion regulation, lack of emotional awareness (P<0.05) and lack of emotional clarity (P<0.01) were higher in elders adults stricken with Alzheimer's disease compared to normal elders.However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of other variables (P>0.05).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.936 | 0.923 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".