Alexithymia and Core Conflictual Relationship Themes: A Study in a Chronically Fatigued Primary Care Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical studies have indicated that concomitant to problems with affect regulation interpersonal problems can be observed in alexithymic patients. We test whether this is the case, and determine a parsimonious set of typical relationship themes. METHOD: Relationship themes were assessed by means of the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) method. This method examines transference patterns, and was applied to clinical interview data collected from a sample (n = 30) of chronically fatigued primary care patients. Alexithymia was assessed by means of a score on the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The data were analyzed by means of the leaps and bounds regression algorithm for selecting optimal subsets of indicators, and by bootstrapping to determine 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Alexithymia can be meaningfully explained by typical relationship themes. A set of two wishes and one response of the self to the other that is most representative of alexithymia was mapped. The wishes demonstrate that the more alexithymic someone is, the less likely it is that this person wishes to be helped by others and the less likely it is that he/she interacts with others in order to feel good about him/herself. The selected response of the self indicates that it is typical of alexithymia that interactions with others do not result in good or happy feelings. CONCLUSION: Linking alexithymia to typical relationship themes is valid. Limitations of the study are indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 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".