Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia refers to difficulty with reflecting on and articulating emotional states. Previous research has found that Asian groups may tend toward greater alexithymia and that cultural values may mediate this difference, although the content of Asian values that form these pathways is unclear. This study examined the relationship between Confucian values, ethnicity, and alexithymia. A sample of 216 undergraduate students completed the Chinese Value Survey and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Asian Canadians scored more highly on alexithymia than non-Asian Canadians. Individuals who valued trustworthiness, patience, and kindness were found to be less alexithymic. The ability to be a source of kindness and security to others may be tied to the development of reflective awareness. Individuals who valued purity from desire and respect for social order were found to be more alexithymic. Such individuals may tend not to reflect on impure or socially disruptive thoughts and feelings. Values associated with purity and order mediated the difference between Asians and non-Asians on alexithymia. Asian Canadians may therefore score more highly on alexithymia because they prefer not to reflect on emotions associated with impurity or social disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".