Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first purpose of this study was to clarify the stimulus value of Rorschach Cards using the SD method, and the second purpose was to examine differences in the emotional experience of alexithymic people by using 10 Rorschach Cards that had few cognitive stimuli related to affect that easily reflect individual imaging ability. Participants were 123 university students who evaluated each of 10 Rorschach cards using 25 adjective pairs selected for determining the stimulus value. They also responded to the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Results of factor analysis with Varimax rotation on the 25 adjective pairs resulted in 19 pairs and three factors were extracted: "Emotional-Experience factor", "Cognitive-Evaluation factor", and "Activity factor". The first 5 cards (I～V) were considered as Negative-Cards and the latter 5 cards (VI～X ) were considered as Positive-Cards, on the basis of the Emotional-Experience factor scores. The mean total value of the emotional experience factor items was calculated. An analysis of variance was conducted on the total score for two factors with the between participants factor being high and low Alexithymia groups and within participants factor being Negative and Positive-Cards. Results indicated a significant interaction. Moreover, the High-Alexithymia group had stronger positive emotional experiences compared to the Low-Alexithymia group with regard to the Positive-Cards. The above results suggest that people with an alexithymic tendency are apt to have more positive emotional experience when using Rorschach Cards that have no cognitive element. Moreover, it is suggested that in psychological interventions with alexithymic people using images, emphasis on the conscious and sensory image level would be effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".