MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043062325 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.88.1.189

Relationship of Numbing to Alexithymia, Apathy, and Depression

2001· article· en· W2043062325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonja M. Ramirez, Hillel Glover, Carroll Ohlde, Richard Mercer, Cary L. Hamlin, Paul J. Goodnick, Mildred I. Perez-Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaApathyPsychologyVarimax rotationClinical psychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleBeck Depression InventoryPsychiatryDepression (economics)Construct validityPsychometricsAnxietyCronbach's alphaCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study assessed the relationship between numbing and three associated conditions of alexithymia, apathy, and depression, utilizing data collected on 353 Vietnam combat veterans diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder from in- and out-patient settings and an outreach center at various Department of Veterans Affairs Medical centers. All subjects completed four self-report measures: the Glover Numbing Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Apathy Evaluation Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. The correlation matrix indicated that scores on the four measures were moderately to highly correlated. Principal components analysis with a varimax rotation indicated a five-factor solution that provided evidence for the factorial validity of each of the constructs assessed. Results of the factor analysis of items from the four measures were consistent with numbing being a separate and distinct construct from alexithymia, apathy, and depression. In general, results indicated that all constructs measured were separate and distinct from one another.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207