The relationship of coping strategies, personality traits and alexithymia in people with allergic rhinitis and asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cilj provedenog istraživanja bio je utvrditi razlike između skupine oboljelih od alergijskog rinitisa i astme i skupine zdravih ljudi u načinu suočavanja, osobinama ličnosti i aleksitimiji. Istraživanje je uključivalo 64 sudionika podijeljena u dvije skupine. Prvu su činile osobe s alergijskim rinitisom i astmom, a drugu zdrave osobe. Primjenjena su tri upitnika: Upitnik načina suočavanja sa stresom, Petofaktorski upitnik ličnosti i Toronto skala aleksitimije. Dobiveni rezultati ne ukazuju na postojanje statistički značajne razlike između grupe oboljelih od alergijskog rinitisa i astme i grupe zdravih ljudi u načinu suočavanja, osobinama ličnosti i aleksitimiji. Ipak, iako se pokazalo da se učestalost aleksitimičnih karakteristika kod osoba s alergijskim rinitisom i astmom ne razlikuje od učestalosti u zdravom uzorku, učestalost karakteristika suspektnih na aleksitimiju je tri puta veća u skupini oboljelih osoba, nego u skupini zdravih. S obzirom na rezultate dobivene na ovom uzorku možemo zaključiti kako se osobe s alergijskim rinitisom i astmom ne razlikuju u načinu suočavanja sa stresom, osobinama ličnosti i aleksitimiji.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".