MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560636790 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v9n1p10

Mentalizing: Seeking the Underlying Dimensions

2016· article· en· W2560636790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marjaana Lindeman, Jari Lipsanen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsMentalizationPsychologyEmpathyConstruct (python library)Theory of mindMetacognitionCognitive psychologySocial cognitionCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mentalizing (i.e., theory of mind) is a much studied construct, but the way different forms of mentalizing are related to each other is poorly understood. In this study (N = 369), we examined the dimensionality of mentalizing by addressing several forms of cognitive and affective empathy, practical mentalizing skills (i.e., understanding figurative language and social etiquette), and metacognition. The results of principal component analysis showed that sixteen mentalizing variables could be reduced to four principal components, namely affective empathy, social skills, self-insight, and views about the nature of beliefs. The components were unrelated, suggesting that they are independent aspects of mentalizing. No general mentalizing factor or overall empathy was found indicating that mentalizing is a non-hierarchical profile construct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.461
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.076 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207