Alexithymia and the ability to provide different types of social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of flight empirical research of correlation of alexithymia and ability to ren¬dering different types of social support to other people are presented in the article. We studied the perceived social support and the given social support including the following types was allocated: emotional, instrumental, formal and reflexiveactive. 38 people aged from 30 till 50 years never addressing to the psychiatrist were examined. Three tests were given to examinees: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (D.B. Eresko's adaptation), Questionnaire of social support of G. Sommer and T. Fydrich (A.B. Kholmogorova, G.A. Petrova 's adaptation,) and projective test of strategy of consolation (F.E. Vasilyuk, E.V. Sheryagina). Different types of correlation between the level of an alexithymia and indicators of the perceived and given social support are revealed. The inverse correlation between indicators of alex¬ithymia and indicators of the perceived social support, and also indicators of abili¬ty to rendering emotional support is found. Also we've found the direct correlation between indicators of alexithymia and indicators of readiness to give instrumental social support to other people.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".