MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993696872 · doi:10.1159/000287725

The SAT <sub>9</sub> : A Quantitative Scoring System for the AT <sub>9</sub> Test as a Measure of Symbolic Function Central to Alexithymic Presentation

2010· article· en· W1993696872 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Cohen, L.A. Demers-Deswsiers, Richard F. H. Catchlove

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Presentation (obstetrics)Function (biology)PsychologyTest (biology)PsychometricsClinical psychologyComputer scienceData miningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the result of preliminary efforts to devise a more objective and quantifiable system with which to score the AT9 test. The AT9 traces symbolic function, a trait central to an alexithymic presentation, and until now has been available only to those clinicians who have the prior knowledge necessary to projectively interpret it. Based on a sample of 42 patients, the inter-rater reliability on the new scale (SAT9) reaches highly acceptable levels of significance as does the correlation between the SAT9 and the ranked projectively interpreted protocols (RPAT9). These results support the further refinement of the SAT9 scale as a means of facilitating the use of this test as a measure of a central alexithymic process.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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