MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386474021 · doi:10.33921/puql1674

Alexithymia’s Epiphenomenality as a Mediator Between Unsupportive Emotion Socialization and Later Psychopathology

2021· article· en· W4386474021 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Philippe Talbot, Serge Lecours

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and Identity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyPsychopathologySadnessAssociation (psychology)SocializationConceptualizationMediatorClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPersonalityPsychotherapistAngerSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In accord with its conceptualization as a deficit, alexithymia has often been theorized and tested as a mediator of the association between childhood risk factors and later psychopathology. However, this is questioned by recent research which conceptualizes alexithymia as the result of negative perceptions of emotions, which by themselves could act as the real mediator of this association between childhood risk factors and later psychopathology. Cross-sectional data were collected through self-report questionnaires,from 193 undergraduate students. Results suggest that, in non-clinical samples, the association between an unsupportive emotion socialization alexithymia is completely mediated by avoidance-related negative attitudes towards sadness. Also, the association between emotion socialization and later psychopathology is not (in the case of borderline personality traits) or only minimally (in the case of depressive symptoms) mediated by alexithymia when these avoidance-related negative attitudes towards sadness are also included as a mediator. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and IdentitySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207