MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003679362 · doi:10.1159/000287894

State of the Art of Alexithymia Measurement

2010· article· en· W2003679362 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane E. Paulson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Toronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsValidityTest validityPsychiatryPersonalitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study using hypertensive patients was to examine the validity and reliability of the current measures of alexithymia. Instruments investigated were the MMPI Alexithymia Scale developed in Denver, the Schalling-Sifneos Scale developed in Boston, and the Beth Israel Hospital Questionnaire (BIQ). Based on the sample of 53 outpatient subjects, no additional estimates of validity were gained to recommend the use of the MMPI Alexithymia Scale or the Schalling-Sifneos Scale as acceptable research instruments at this time. Inter-rater reliability of the BIQ was strong and supports its continued use. Recommendations for further standardization in alexithymia research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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