Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Adaptation of the Brazilian Version to Low-Educated Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: For the purpose of studying Alexithymia in low-educated adults, we intend to adapt the Brazilian version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) and to verify its internal consistency. With that aim, we translated the original TAS-26 (English) to Portuguese, adopting a colloquial language, without content distortion. An exploratory qualitative study interviewed 50 women (38-65 years, education <9 years) and identified comprehension difficulties in 22 items, that needed adaptation. A professional translator performed the back-translation of the adapted TAS-26, that was applied to a new sample of women (90 with chronical pain and 90 without pain, 38-65 years, education <9 years) to evaluate its internal consistency. Only four items (1/2/3/16) of the pre-existing Brazilian version (appropriate to university students) did not require modification. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was satisfactory for total score (0.65) and elevated for factor 1 (0.87). The adapted Brazilian version of TAS-26 is appropriate to low-educated adults.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".