The Relationship Between Emotion Regulation Difficultıes And Alexithymia In Nurses: A Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to determine the relationship between emotion regulation difficulties and alexithymia in nurses, as well as the influencing factors. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive and cross-sectional study, data were collected between October 2023 and March 2024 from 112 nurses working at a tertiary training and research hospital located in the Eastern Black Sea region, using the Personal Information Form, the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–Short Form, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Results: The mean total score of the nurses on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale was found to be 48.46±9.46, and the mean total score on the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form was 35.88±1.02. A moderately positive and statistically significant difference was found between the total scores of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (t:0.621; p
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".