<b>Emotional Unavailability and Marital Satisfaction: Alexithymia Among Married Men</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the impact of alexithymia among married onto their own marital satisfaction. The sample of the present study comprised of 98 married men selected via purposive sampling. The participants were aged between 25-45 years (M=33.61, SD=4.02). The measures followed after filling demographic form are: ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS; Fowers & Olson, 1993) and Toronto Alexithymia scale (TAS-20; Bagby et al., 1994). Linear regression analysis was utilized to test the hypothesis of the present study. The results predicted significant association and contribution of married men’s alexithymia onto their marital satisfaction i.e. alexithymia caused 12.7% variance (R2 = .127, F (1, 98) = 13.996, p<.001) in the scores of marital satisfaction. The results will have important clinical implications and will serve as foundation for future studies, given that it is the pioneering investigation of alexithymia and marital satisfaction among married men in Pakistan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".