MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Alexithymia and the Engagement with Beauty

2024· article· en· W4393043700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. A. Nosova

Bibliographic record

VenueReflexio · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaBeautyPsychologySocial psychologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the results of a study of the connection between alexithymia and sensitivity to beauty among students of the department «Psychology» of the Institute of Medicine and Psychology V. Zelman of Novosibirsk State University and students of the department «Mechatronics and Robotics. Artificial Intelligence» of the Institute of Intelligent Robotics of Novosibirsk State University. The sample consisted of 74 subjects aged from 17 to 33 years (30 men and 44 women). The subjects were equally distributed in the areas: 37 people were bachelors in the department of «Psychology» and 37 people were bachelors in the department of «Mechatronics and Robotics. Artificial intelligence». The study used the Toronto Alexithymic Scale TAS-26 and the Engagement with Beauty Scale. A negative relationship was confirmed between the level of alexithymia and the level of sensitivity to the beauty of ideas. Additionally, results were obtained related to the differences between students of the department «Psychology» and students of the department «Mechatronics and Robotics. Artificial intelligence». Psychology students are more susceptible to the inner beauty of a person than programming students and, accordingly, they have a greater level of general sensitivity to beauty. Also, as additional confirmation, the results obtained in a previous study about the difference between men and women in the level of receptivity to the beauty of nature were confirmed: women are more receptive to the beauty of nature than men [Nosova, 2022].

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflexioSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207