Validade da Versão em Português da Toronto Alexithymia Scale-TAS em Amostra Clínica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foram estudadas propriedades psicométricas da versão em português da Toronto Alexithymia Scale-TAS, em uma amostra de 294 pacientes internados em hospital geral por diversas patologias. Os resultados mostraram boa consistência interna (a = 0,72), e precisão de teste e reteste (r = 0,72). Análise fatorial sugeriu que um modelo de três dimensões pode ser mais adequado para esta população. Os itens do primeiro fator estão associados à habilidade para identificar os sentimentos e distingui-los de sensações corporais. Os itens do segundo fator relacionam-se a um estilo concreto de pensamento. Os itens do terceiro fator relacionam-se à habilidade de expressão de afetos e fantasias (daydreaming). Conclui-se que a alexitimia, conforme avaliada pela versão em português da TAS, é multidimensional não sendo bem representada por um escore global de severidade.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".