The interaction of teachers' neurocognitive and emotional functions: The relationship between cognitive flexibility and alexithymia with discrimination in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Perceived discrimination by teachers may impair the effective regulation of emotional and cognitive factors, such as alexithymia and cognitive flexibility. Aim: The present study explores the potential for predicting perceived discrimination among female teachers by simultaneously examining cognitive flexibility and alexithymia. Method: This descriptive and correlational study was conducted on a statistical population comprising female teachers in Mashhad in 2023. A total of 120 participants were selected through random sampling from among those who responded to the study invitation. Data were collected using the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (2010), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (1994), and the Pascoe and Richman Scale (2009). The data were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple linear regression in SPSS version 26. Results: Discrimination in the workplace has a significant negative relationship with cognitive flexibility and a significant positive relationship with alexithymia (P<0.001). Also, cognitive flexibility and alexithymia explain 57% of the total variance of discrimination in the workplace. Conclusion: According to the findings, providing psychological training and services to teachers is essential to effectively deal with discrimination in the workplace and to improve their capabilities in relation to components such as alexithymia and cognitive flexibility. It is suggested that developing training courses on how to deal with discrimination and providing interventions to improve psychological functions such as cognitive flexibility and alexithymia should be prioritized in the programs of the education institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".