THE QUALITY OF ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND ALEXITHYMIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia is a cognitive and affective deficit in processing, adjustment and verbalizing of emotions. Numerous studies have demonstrated the role of precarious early relationship with caregivers in developing alexithymia. The main aim of this study was to analyzethe relationshipbetweenalexithymiaand the type and qualityof attachment systemin adolescence. The assumptions we have intended to test in our study were: (1) The level of alexithymia is negatively associated with secure attachment style; (2) There is a positive correlation between the alexithymia and insecure attachment styles. The research was conducted on a sample of 174 students from high school, whose mean age is 16.55, of which 101 boys (58.05%) and 73 girls (41.95%). For the measurement of the variables investigated in this correlational study, were used Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). The results of this research show that there is a negative association between alexithymia and secure attachment style and a positive association with two of the three insecure styles (fearful and preoccupied). The study highlights a relevant difference between boys and girls, in terms of the relationship between alexithymia and attachment style
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".