Adaptação transcultural do inventário Parcours Amoureux des Jeunes – PAJ de origem canadense para o contexto brasileiro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing violent events in the amorous trajectory of young people mobilizes researchers worldwide. The scope of this study is to perform the cross-cultural adaptation and content validation of the Canadian Parcours Amoureux des Jeunes (PAJ) inventory in the Brazilian context. It is a methodological study with the following steps: (a) translation and back-translation; (b) committee of experts (10) for analysis of equivalence, clarity and matching percentages; (c) calculation of the Content Validity Index / CVI. This analysis generated Pilot version III (d) submitted to a pre-test group of 36 adolescents aged 14 to 24 of both sexes to obtain cultural, conceptual, semantic and idiomatic equivalence. The PAJ showed adequate content validity (CVI 0.97). In section 1 (sociodemographic aspects of youths and families inherent to the Canadian context), the questions were appropriate to the Brazilian context shown by the low value of the CVI. Cross-cultural adaptation and content validation processes showed that the PAJ had adequate clarity and equivalence properties. This step makes it viable to conduct psychometric analysis to assess the replicability and reliability of the instrument to be applied in the Brazilian context.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".