MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W783408615

A Study on the Psychological Characteristics of Sasang Constitution with TAS-20K

2000· article· en· W783408615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim Gwang-Ho, Bo-Gyun Kim, Jongwoo Kim, Whang Wei-Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oriental Neuropsychiatry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMann–Whitney U testConstitutionSignificant differencePsychologyMedicineInternal medicinePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to understand the psychological charateristics of Sasang Constitution. the Korean version of 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20K) was completed by 59 sixth grade students of oriental medical college of KyungHee university who defined as one of Sasang constitution from June 2000 to August, and the mean scores of Yangin versus Eumin and Sasang constitution on TAS-20K was compared. The results of this study were as follows.1. Comparison between male and female on Means of TAS-20K ScoreMann-Whitney U test detected no significant differences between mean ranks of TAS-20K scores of male and those of female in F1, F2 and Total, but significant difference in F3(Mann-Whitney U test, t=2.493. p=.018)2. Comparison between Yangin and Eumin on Means of TAS-20K ScoreMann-whitney U test detected no significant differences between mean ranks of TAS-20K scores of Yangin and those of Eumin in F1. F3 and Total, but significant difference in F2(Mann-Whitney U test. t=-2.805. p=.008)3. Comparison among Sasang constitution on Means of TAS-20K ScoreAlthough mean of TAS-20K score of Taeyangin. Soyangin and Soeumin, there were no significant differences among Sasang constitution in F1, F2 and F3 as well as Total when mean ranks of TAS-20K scores of Sasang constitution were compaed by one-way ANOVA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oriental NeuropsychiatrySame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207