MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392167793 · doi:10.3390/bs14030183

Mental Imagery in the Relationship between Alexithymia and Parental Psychological Control

2024· article· en· W4392167793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zengjian Wang, Ziying Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of Shanxi ProvinceYoung Scientists FundSouth China Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychologyPsychological controlMental imageClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to explore the mediating role of mental imagery in the relationship between alexithymia and parental psychological control among Chinese university students. Conducted between March and April 2023, this descriptive study involved 282 volunteer participants from a university in southern China. Data collection included the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), the Parental Psychological Control Scale (PPC), and the Vividness of Visual Mental Imagery questionnaire (VVIQ). The results revealed that: (1) based on established cut-off, 81 students were identified as highly alexithymic; (2) the alexithymia group scored higher on both the TAS and PPC and lower on the VVIQ compared to the non-alexithymia and possible-alexithymia groups; and (3) mediating analysis demonstrated a strong and positive correlation between parental psychological control and alexithymia for all participants, with visual mental imagery mediating this relationship. This study underscores the interconnectedness of parental psychological control, visual mental imagery, and alexithymia among college students. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are also 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207