Study on the relativity among the attachment type, alexitymia and defense style of depression patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the attachment type, the level of alexitymia and the defense style of depression patients and their relativity. Methods 32 depression patients were assessed with the adult attachment scale (AAS-1996 Revised Edition), toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) and defense style questionnaire(DSQ), and 80 healthy people were involved as controls. Results The depression patients showed significantly different attachment type from the control group(χ2=47.6, P<0.01). Compare with the control group, the depression patients showed higher scores in immature defense style((5.47±1.13) vs (3.79±1.09)) and neurotic defense style((4.93±0.56) vs (4.20±1.00), (P<0.01)). Compared with controls, the depression patients showed higher scores in TAS total score((76.88±8.94) vs (65.70±7.98)) factor I ((3.34±0.77) vs (2.41±0.78)) and factor Ⅱ ((3.64±0.51) vs (2.65±0.55), P<0.01), and lower scores in factor III((2.51±0.78) vs (3.14±1.03), P<0.01). The depression patients' adult attachment was significantly correlative with their scores of alexithymia. The depression patients' adult attachment was also significantly correlative with their scores of defense style. Conclusion The attachment of depression patients may lead to depression via their defense style. Depression leads to alexitymia. Depression patients with different features of attachment show different level of alexitymia. Key words: Depression; Adult attachment; Attachment type; Alexithymia; Defense 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".