Alexitimia y disfrute de la vida en mayores institucionalizados versus aula de mayores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A line of research that has attracted a great interest is the study of personal beliefs about the ability to enjoy life and that may be affected in people with alexithymia. The objectives were to analyze the relationship between alexithymia and capacity for the enjoyment of life by comparing a group of students enrolled in the older classroom of Murcia University with a group of users within an institutionalized elderly. A cross-sectional design was used. Study participants were 80 subjects of whom 50 people were in the senior classroom (M: 68.86 years; DT: 11,99). Abbreviated Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Beliefs About Enjoy Life Questionnaire were used in the study. The relevant permits were requested to the management center/director of the institutionalized elderly and the senior classroom. The results showed that institutionalized people lowest in Enjoy the Moment. Significant correlations between reminiscent of the good times and the difficulty in identifying feelings were found, as well as with the pattern of externally oriented thinking. It is important to develop programs which promote the enjoyment of life to manage emotions in people with 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".