Adolescent Alexithymia Research: Indigenous Sample Compared to Hispanic Sample in Southern Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) adolescent research became increasingly popular. We found no data examining two different ethnical adolescent groups sharing comparable environment. Furthermore, there are no indications that TAS-20 has ever been used in Chile. We conducted a transcultural comparison investigating the influence of ethnicity, gender and age on a low socioeconomic teenage population. Additionally, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. In this cohort study (n = 225), 95 indigenous students were compared to the Hispanic control group of 130 participants. We found proper replicability and internal reliability of TAS-20 and the three-factor solution for our sample. We measured high alexithymia rates and significant differences between the ethnicities and genders but there was no influence of age. Although factor 3 (EOT) was inconsistent to some degree, TAS-20 resulted to be an appropriate measure for Chilean adolescents. Indigenous ethnicity, gender, low socioeconomic status, and power distance in a rural environment contribute to high alexithymia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".