Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive body of research on the alexithymia construct is reviewed to show how various empirical methodologies can be used to evaluate the validity and increase our understanding of theoretical and clinically derived psychoanalytic concepts. The historical background of alexithymia and the theoretical framework in which the construct was formulated are presented, after which measurement- and experiment-based approaches to construct validation are described. This is followed by a review of empirical investigations that have yielded evidence that alexithymia is a dimensional personality trait associated with several illnesses of interest to psychoanalysts. Empirical research also supports clinical observations and impressions that individuals with high degrees of alexithymia principally employ primitive defenses, have a limited capacity for empathy, exhibit deficits in mentalization, and do not respond well to traditional interpretive psychotherapies. Also reviewed is empirical research that implicates genetic and environmental/developmental factors in the etiology of alexithymia, in particular childhood trauma and insecure attachments, factors generally associated with deficits in affect development and affect regulation. The clinical relevance of the empirical research findings is discussed in the final section.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".