Alexithymia and peer victimisation: interconnected pathways to adolescent non-suicidal self-injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) among adolescents underscores the importance of understanding the complex factors that drive this behaviour. Framed within broader constructs of emotional regulation theories, alexithymia and peer victimisation are thought to interact to influence NSSI behaviours. AIM: This research addresses whether alexithymia and peer victimisation serve as risk factors for NSSI and, if so, how these factors interact with each other. METHOD: This quantitative study analysed data from 605 adolescents, using a range of validated self-report measures including the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Statistical analyses including one-way analysis of variance, multiple regression and structural equation modelling were employed to scrutinise the relationships among the variables. RESULTS: > 0.05). These relationships were found to be invariant across genders. CONCLUSIONS: This study enriches our understanding of the interplay between alexithymia, peer victimisation and NSSI, particularly within the Chinese context. Its findings have significant implications for a rethinking of alexithymia's theoretical construct and interventions targeting emotional literacy and peer dynamics among adolescents. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal design to establish causality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".