20‐Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Do difficulties describing feelings assess proneness to shame instead of difficulties symbolizing emotions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hallmark of alexithymia is the difficulty putting emotional states into words which has to be differentiated from problems to communicate emotion to others. Shame proneness is a personality trait that is expected to be closely related to a reduced emotional self-disclosure in social interactions. The present investigation was conducted to examine construct validity of the Difficulties Describing Feelings scale of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). The TAS-20 was administered to 68 subjects (30 psychiatric inpatients and 38 normals) along with the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS), a direct measure of the ability to express feelings verbally, and the Shame-Guilt-Scale. Difficulties Describing Feelings was associated with shame assessing scales but not with guilt assessing scales or the LEAS. Thus, in view of our data one should be cautious in interpreting scores from the TAS-20 scale Difficulties Describing Feelings as indices of a difficulty to symbolize one's emotions. Instead, this TAS-20 scale seems to evaluate aspects of social shame.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".