The Mediating Role of Mental Rumination in the Relationship between Alexithymia, Impulsivity, Distress Tolerance, and Self-criticism with Self-injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the mediating role of mental rumination in the relationship between alexithymia, impulsivity, distress tolerance, and self-criticism with self-injury. The current research was part of applied research regard to procedure, In terms of method, it was a type of correlational study. The research population consisted of all the male and female students in the first year of secondary school in Ardabil city in the academic year of 2021-2022, out of which 626 people were selected as a sample by multi-stage cluster sampling method. Research questionnaires included: Klonsky and Glenn's self-injury report questionnaire, Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow Rumination Response Scale, Simons & Gaher's Distress Tolerance Questionnaire, Barrett's Impulsivity Scale and the Thompson and Zuraf's scale of self-criticism levels. Path analysis was used to analyze the data. Findings showed that alexithymia, impulsivity, distress tolerance, and self-criticism directly and indirectly by mediating the role of mental rumination predict self-injury. It can be concluded that teaching emotional control skills and treatment of mental rumination can be useful in reducing self-injury in teenagers.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".