The Implicit Theory of Mind in the Dependence on Psychoactive Substances and under Standard Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the article is to compare the features of Theory of Mind between people dependent on psychoactive substances, at different stages of recovery and the group of conditional norm. 98 individuals participated in the research. In the study, the following groups were compared by different parameters: 1) persons dependent on psychoactive substances. This group includes patients of the rehabilitation center, i. e. people in the early stages of recovery who are dependent on alcohol and / or other psychoactive substances; 2) persons dependent on alcohol which are part of the previous group; 3) persons addicted to alcohol, at later stages of recovery. This group includes members of the Alcoholics Anonymous community; 4) persons belonging to the group of conditional norm. Methods. There were used such instruments as Theory of Mind assessment scale (Th.o.m.a.s, Bosco, Gabbatore, Tirassa & Testa, 2016); Toronto Alexithymia Scale TAS26, adapted by Bekhterev Psychoneurological Research Institute (Eresko, Isurina, Koidanovskaia, Karvasarskyi, Karpova, Korepanova & Shifrin, 2005); 5PFQ personality questionnaire, adapted by Hromov (Hromov, 2000). For further analysis, descriptive statistics as well as several non-parametric criteria (U-Mann-Whitney test; Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion) has been used. The results. A number of statistically significant differences were found between the 4 groups. In particular, differences were found in ToM structure, in the severity of alexithymia, as well as in the strength of the manifestation of various factors and subfactors by the personal questionnaire 5PFQ. The complexity of the allocative perspective has been established in both groups of dependent persons, in patients of the rehabilitation center and within the group of Alcoholic Anonymous. It was found that these two groups are not statistically different in the Toronto alexithymic scale, although in both groups there are high median indicators, which are moderately higher the upper limit of normal scores, and there is a statistically significant difference between these groups and the conditional norm group. Conclusions. ToM of persons dependent on psychoactive substances is characterized by a reduced understanding of their own emotions, if usage of psychoactive substances continues or has stopped recently, but it is resumed over the term of sobriety; while a high rate of alexithymia is remained. Also, persons dependent on psychoactive substances have a complication of the allocative perspective of ToM, even during the long-term sobriety.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".