MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079571996 · doi:10.1159/000287912

Toward the Development of a New Self-Report Alexithymia Scale

2010· article· en· W2079571996 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

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychometricsConstruct (python library)Construct validityClinical psychologyInternal consistencyScale (ratio)Socioeconomic statusRating scaleOperationalizationReliability (semiconductor)Test validityDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing methodological problems in the development of existing scales for measuring alexithymia, this study reports the development of a new self-report scale. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) was devised with concern for theoretical congruence with the alexithymia construct, independence of social desirability response bias, and internal consistency. Initially, 41 items were administered to 542 college students. Twenty-six items meeting preestablished psychometric guidelines were retained. Factor analysis yielded four interpretable factors, all consistent with the construct. The scale demonstrated adequate split-half and test-retest reliability, and scores were not significantly associated with age, education, and socioeconomic status. These preliminary results suggest that the TAS may be used as a clinical screening device with psychiatric and general medical patient populations.

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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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