Features of the Personal Anxiety and Mental Rigidity Ratio in the Structure of Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to determine the components of personal anxiety and mental rigidity, the significance of their severity and combination in the structure of alexithymia. Materials and methods. The study was conducted on 377 apparently healthy men and women aged 20-25 years. The assessment of the level of alexithymia in points was carried out using the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale in the Russian version, then all participants were passed the Differential Assessment of Personal Anxiety Test and the Differentiated Mental Rigidity Assessment Test to determine the corresponding characteristics. The study participants were divided by gender, and each group into subgroups depending on the level of alexithymia severity. Results. Analysis of the average values revealed an increase in both the general levels of personal anxiety and mental rigidity with an increase in alexithymic potential, and individual components of these signs. A factor analysis was performed to identify the ratios of personal anxiety and mental rigidity components depending on alexithymia severity. It was revealed a three-factor structure with the greatest loads on the affective and cognitive components. With correlation analysis, the structures of the subscales of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale were investigated, and it was revealed that they are, to a high degree of probability, formed by various combinations of personal anxiety and mental rigidity components. Conclusion. The investigation confirmed the complex heterogeneous and multidimensional structure of the alexithymic potential and the essential role of various ratios of personal anxiety and mental rigidity components in its profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".