Mentalization in adult attachment narratives: Reflective functioning, mental states, and affect elaboration compared.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between three measures of mentalization (reflective function, mental states, and verbal elaboration of affect), attachment status, and the severity of axis I and axis II pathology were examined. Seventy-three adults, both ex-psychiatric patients and nonclinical volunteers were administered the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). Comparisons between the three measures indicate that they share some aspect of a core mentalization process and that each illuminates a specific component. Reflective function was the only predictor of attachment status. The number of axis I diagnoses is partly explained by attachment insecurity, but the capacity to generate high-level defensive mental states as well as increments in verbal affect elaboration further contribute to the model. Finally, increments in affect elaboration, as well as augmentations in high-level defensive activity and reflective function are all associated with decreases in the number of axis II diagnoses, over and above the contribution of attachment status and axis I pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it