Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Alexithymia and Attachment Style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia and its relation with attachment style were evaluated in a group of 69 patients (men, M age = 46.4 yr., SD = 12.6; women, M age = 44.2 yr., SD = 14.4) affected by Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Two self-evaluation questionnaires were used for psychological evaluation, the 20 item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). The TAS-20 analysis showed that the clinical sample taken as a whole did not score in the alexithymic range. The inverse correlations between the Confidence ASQ subscale and the Difficulty Communicating Feelings TAS-20 subscale showed that communication of emotions could develop more easily within the framework of a relational context characterized by safety and confidence. In this group of patients this was represented by the referent caregiver.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".