Analyzing the Alexithymia Scores of University Students Who Do and Do not Do Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is conducted to analyze the differences in the alexithymia scores of university students who do and do not do sports. In total, 365 university students participated voluntarily in the study. 189 (106 men and 83 women) of them were licensed for at least 2 years in a team or individual sports branches, and 176 (98 men and 78 women) of them did not do sports. In order to reach the data of the study, the personal information form which is developed by researchers, and the Toronto alexithymia scale with 20 questions developed by Bagby et al. in 1994 (2) and adapted into Turkish by Güleç et al.(10) have been used. According to the results of the research, no significant differences were found in the total alexithymia scores and the sub-dimensions of Difficulty in Recognizing Emotions, Difficulty in Expressing Emotions, and Extraverted Thinking in accordance of the gender of university students who do and do not do sports.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".