Validitätshinweise der Deutschen Version der TAS-20
Bibliographic record
Abstract
419 patients (psychosomatic-C/L-service unit; neurotic spectrum, somatoform and personality disorders) were investigated by collecting data of clinical and psychometrical variables (SCL-90-R, NEO-FFI, IIP-D). The aim was to evaluate whether the sum score and the three factors of the German 20-item-version of the Toronto-Alexithymia-Scale (TAS-20) postulated by Bagby correlate with other clinical variables in a convergent way. The TAS-20 sum score and the factors (F1) "Difficulties identifying feelings" and (F2) "Difficulties describing one's feelings" correlated convergently with the NEO-FFI-scales "neuroticism" and "openness for new experiences", with numerous scales of the SCL-90-R, as well as with the scales "cool/repelling" and "introverted/social avoiding" interaction style of the IIP-D. Factor (F3) "Externally oriented thinking" correlated with "Extraversion" but was not related to clinical impairment (SCL-90 R). The results could be interpreted in terms of convergent validity of the TAS-20. In addition, alexithymic patients seem to be impaired with respect to interpersonal communication and they are subjectively able to perceive appreciate this restriction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".