MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025913050 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.569

Alexithymia and Vocational Maturity

2013· article· en· W2025913050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyFeelingMaturity (psychological)Vocational educationToronto Alexithymia ScaleEmotional intelligenceClinical psychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia refers to an individual's deficit in identifying and processing feelings, in distinguishing feelings from bodily sensations, and an externally oriented way of thinking. Alexithymia has been linked to lower scores on verbal, non-verbal and general intelligence tests (Lilly & Valdez, 2001). Other studies have shown that higher scores in alexithymia measures corresponded to lower scores in creativity (Zenasni & Lubart, 2009) and emotional intelligence (Coffey & Kerns, 2003). Little research has been found exploring alexithymia with vocational measures, such as vocational maturity. The latter has been defined as how well individuals are capable to manage the cognitive and affective tasks that are proper to his or her stage of career development (Super & Thompson, 1979). This research aims to verify the impact of alexithymia (measured by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, TAS-20) on vocational maturity (measured by the Career Educational Questionnaire, CEQ). The sample consisted of 592 Brazilian university students, ages between 16 and 51 years old, of both sexes (M = 224; F = 368). Multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the three dimensions of alexithymia measured by the TAS-20 (difficulty in describing feelings, difficulty in identifying feelings and external-oriented thinking) predicted the four dimensions of the vocational maturity measured by the CEQ (self-knowledge, information sources, career planning, decision factors and occupational knowledge). Results: using Bonferroni method the type I error was controlled. The determination coefficient (R2= .127) indicates that 13% of the variance of the decision factors (CEQ) is explained by the linear association with the difficulty in identifying feelings (TAS-20). Low scores on the decision factors (capacity to identify qualities and flaws of one's personality in order to choose a career) can be explained by a higher difficulty in identifying one's feelings.

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.

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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.272 · 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