Contrasting Metacognitive, Emotion Recognition and Alexithymia Profiles in Bulimia, Anorexia, and Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Alexithymia, or deficits in emotion recognition, and metacognitive capacity have been noted both in psychosis and eating disorders and potentially linked to psychopathology. This study sought to compare levels of impairments in these phenomena and their associations with psychopathology in groups with eating disorders and psychosis. Participants with diagnoses of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD; n = 53), anorexia (n = 40), or bulimia (n = 40) were recruited from outpatient clinics. Alexithymia was measured with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale; emotion recognition, with the Ekman Faces Test; and metacognition, with the Metacognitive Assessment Scale-Abbreviated. Psychopathology was measured with the Eating Attitudes Test, Body Image Questionnaire, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Results indicated that the SSD group had significantly poorer metacognitive function than either eating disorder group. Metacognition was related to body image in the anorexia group and a range of different forms of general psychopathology in the bulimia group. Alexithymia was related to eating disorder behaviors in the bulimia group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".