Mentalization, theory of mind and socioemotional development in middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theory of Mind (ToM) and Mentalization are essential domains involved in child socioemotional development. ToM is the ability to understand people’s actions and interactions as guided by internal beliefs, emotions, desires, and intentions. In contrast, mentalization is a mental process involved in interpreting human behaviour in terms of mental states related to the self and others. ToM and mentalization constructs are frequently used interchangeably, although they play distinct roles in child development. The present study explores this issue, focusing on the mentalization and ToM interactive dynamics in relation to middle childhood socioemotional skills. Participants were 112 non-clinical children from 8 to 10 y.o. assessed with Child Reflective Functioning Scale (CRFS) on Child Attachment Interview, Reading the Mind in the Eyes test and the Roberts-2 Test. Results from network analysis revealed an association between ToM and Mentalization. Mentalization is positively connected with self-help abilities and age. ToM supports mentalization, while mentalization is related to developing a sense of self-agency involved in improving psychological resources and preventing mental health impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".