MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500746585 · doi:10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.06.010

Funcionamiento familiar como predictor de la alexitimia de acuerdo al índice de masa corporal

2016· article· es· W2500746585 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Teresa Rojas Ramírez, Mirna García Méndez

Bibliographic record

VenueActa de Investigación Psicológica · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaDysfunctional familyPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleOverweightHostilityFeelingClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyBody mass indexSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia is a cognitive-affective disorder that causes a deficiency in the ability to identify, describe and express feelings (Sifneos, 1973), is related with familiar environment dysfunctional, as the involvement of the parents in the emotional needs of their children (Kind & Mallinckrodt, 2000). From this approach, the goal of the research was to determine if family functioning predicts alexithymia in persons withBody MassIndex (BMI) of normal weight, overweight and obesity. 428 collaborated voluntarily. Participated adultsliving in the MexicoCity(M = 40 years, SD = 7.8) who responded to the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker & Taylor, 1994), Scale of Family Functioning (Garcia Mendez et al., 2006) and reported their height and weight to get their BMI. Analysis of stepwise linear regression were performed and the results suggest that in people with overweight and obesity, factors cohesion/rules and hostility/avoidance conflict are predictors of alexithymia. In normoweight, forecasters were command/problems in expressing feelings and cohesion/rules. These results show clearly that dysfunctional relationships facilitate the presence of behaviours related to 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa de Investigación PsicológicaSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207