Interpersonal Problems and Cognitive Characteristics of Interpersonal Representations in Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, associations between alexithymia, interpersonal problems, and cognitive-structural aspects of internal interpersonal representations were examined. Alexithymia was measured using the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA) and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). To measure interpersonal problems, the dominance and affiliation dimension scores of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems were used, and cognitive-structural characteristics of interpersonal representations were measured using the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS). As hypothesized, alexithymia was related to cold and withdrawn, but not to dominant or submissive, interpersonal functioning. In terms of the SCORS, alexithymia was negatively related to complexity of interpersonal representations, both in TAT and in interview narratives, indicating a link between alexithymia and mentalization. However, alexithymia was related only to the dimension of social causality when this dimension was scored on TAT narratives. Overall, the TSIA provides the most consistent and stable results after controlling for negative affectivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".