MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997310663 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20461

The construct of alexithymia: associations with defense mechanisms

2008· article· en· W1997310663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Helmes, Pamela D. McNeill, Ronald R. Holden, Chris J. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyPersonalityAssociation (psychology)Construct (python library)FeelingToronto Alexithymia ScaleCognitionDefence mechanismsClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia is a dimensional personality construct that encompasses a cluster of cognitive and affective characteristics relating to difficulty identifying and describing feelings, limited imaginal capacity, and having an externally oriented thinking style. Attempts to explain the etiology of high levels of alexithymia have resulted in disagreements regarding the relationship between alexithymia and psychological defense mechanisms. Much of the previous research suggests strong associations between alexithymia and immature or maladaptive defense styles. To examine these relationships using correlations, multiple regression and factor analytic techniques, three nonclinical populations in Australia and Canada were studied with a view to evaluating the association of defense mechanisms and response styles with alexithymia. Our results support the association of alexithymia with emotional inhibition, but extend those associations to immature defense styles and aspects of social desirability.

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)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations106
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207