The Use of Projective Drawings to Assess Alexithymia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Background: The goal of this study was to investigate whether the results of assessments of alexithymia based on a self-report questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), correlates with those based on drawing content in the Wartegg Drawing Completion Test (WZT). It was hypothesized that high alexithymia scores in the TAS are negatively correlated to the number of human drawings in the WZT. Method: Subjects were 83 patients of the Oulu Deaconess Institute, Oulu, Finland. Results: The TAS mean score for subjects with no human drawings was 56.0 compared to 45.4 for those with one or more human drawings (p < .001). Conclusions: The results can be considered encouraging concerning the overall usefulness and validity of the WZT. It is concluded that efforts to develop a psychometrically valid and reliable method of interpreting the WZT should be continued.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it