MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968794204 · doi:10.1159/000287939

Prediction of Alexithymic Characteristics from Physiological, Personality, and Subjective Measures

2010· article· en· W1968794204 on OpenAlexaff
John B. Martin, Robert O. Pihl, Simon N. Young, Frank R. Ervin, Smadar Valérie Tourjman

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationAlexithymiaPsychologyPersonalitySchema (genetic algorithms)CognitionCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noting concerns for a comprehensive conceptualization of alexithymic characteristics, the present study examines the potential utility of considering these characteristics as manifestations of deficits in cognitive schemata. Research guided by this conceptualization has identified physiological, subjective, and personality features of alexithymic characteristics. It is reasoned that if this conceptualization has merit, it should be possible to predict the presence of alexithymic characteristics from these features. Results of the present study indicate that a combination of physiological, subjective, and personality variables significantly predicts the presence of alexithymic characteristics as measured by the Schalling-Sifneos Personality Scale. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for a more comprehensive description of alexithymia and the value of the cognitive schema conceptualization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy and PsychosomaticsSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207