Empirical Study of the Implicit Theory of Mind of Persons Addicted to Psychoactive Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is dedicated to empirical investigation of Theory of Mind of persons dependent on psychoactive substances. Searching new approaches to medical treatment, psychological and social rehabilitation retains an actual subject of scientific interest. Inclusion of the Theory of Mind to rehabilitation and corrective programs can be a perspective direction. The purpose of this article is to analyze the Theory of Mind peculiarities in persons who are addicted to psychoactive substances, as well as to determine the interconnection between the Theory of Mind, alexithymia, and personality dispositions. The following methods have been used: Theory of Mind assessment scale (Th.o.m.a.s), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26), Big Five Personality Test (5PFQ). Statistical tools: descriptive statistics and non-parametric (Spearman’s correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test). Study sample – 32 persons, who are addicted to psychoactive substances (median 41 y.o., SD 11,83). As a result of this empirical study, we have found several peculiarities of the Theory of Mind in persons dependent on psychoactive substances. We have compared this result to previous findings obtained by authors of the Th.o.m.a.s test. There were determined the number of connections between the Theory of Mind and other psychological features. Theory of Mind in persons dependent on psychoactive substances is characterized by a reduced understanding of their own emotions and feelings. This appears as poor differentiation of emotional experiences and physiological manifestations of the body. Another peculiarity of Theory of Mind dependent on psychoactive substances is a poor allocative perspective. It means that dependent on psychoactive substances cannot or do not want to «walk in someone else’s shoes», this is why they project their own beliefs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".