An Examination of the Topology and Measurement of the Alexithymia Construct Using Network Analysis
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
There is some ongoing controversy surrounding the definition and measurement of the alexithymia construct. Whereas most researchers describe 4 components comprising the construct (difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, restricted fantasizing, and externally oriented thinking), some include a 5th component, which is defined as "reduced experiencing of emotional feelings." This study examined the topology and measurement of alexithymia using the method of network analysis with data from a heterogeneous multilanguage sample (N = 1,696) that had completed the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ; Vorst & Bermond, 2001 ). The BVAQ includes an Emotionalizing subscale for assessing the purported 5th component; we compared the network analyses conducted both with and without the Emotionalizing items. The results revealed strong associations between Emotionalizing and Analyzing (externally oriented thinking) items, but Emotionalizing items had almost as many negative as positive connections with items assessing the other components of the construct. A comparison of communities identified by modularity analyses of the 2 networks failed to support emotionalizing as a distinct component of the construct. In addition, network metrics revealed that Fantasizing items were particularly weak within both networks, suggesting that reduced fantasizing might be a peripheral component of the alexithymia construct. Implications for the measurement and treatment of alexithymia are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it