Mentaliseringsförmåga hos unga vuxna: en jämförande studie mellan en klinisk grupp och en normalgrupp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the capacity to mentalize among twenty young adults, between 18 and 25 years, in one clinical group and one normal (control) group. The study also explores and compares differences in experiences of relationships during the life course. The study uses semi-structured interviews, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965), the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (2000), a Mentalization Scale and the Reflective Functioning Scale (1998) to collect the material. The interviews are analyzed using content analysis (Breakwell, Hammond &Fife-Shaw, 2000) and five major themes are identified: problems, relations, ability to understand own problems, thoughts about mental illness in general and cure, limited and high reflective functioning. The results show a significant difference between the clinical group and the normal group in capacity to mentalize. This correlates with results on the RSES, TAS-20 and the RF-Scale. The clinical groups’ lower scores on capacity to mentalize correlates with lower self-esteem, limited or moderate reflective functioning and higher scores on TAS-20, indicating a higher level of alexithymia. The results also suggest a connection between mentalization, attachment strategies and overall relational background in both groups. The results are compared with the results of previous studies and discussed in light of the theory on mentalization, attachment strategies, object relations and affect regulation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".