Questionário de Fusão Cognitiva (CFQ): novas evidências de validade e invariância transcultural
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fusão cognitiva é um conceito chave na Terapia de Aceitação e Compromisso, mecanismo em que a pessoa se funde com seus pensamentos e os toma como se fossem fatos reais. Os objetivos desta pesquisa foram de estimar novas evidências de validade do Questionário de Fusão Cognitiva (CFQ) e de testar a invariância dos itens entre amostra brasileira e franco-canadense. Participaram desta pesquisa 578 adultos brasileiros e 676 adultos franco-canadenses. A Análise Fatorial Exploratória revelou adequação da estrutura unidimensional, conforme hipótese teórica. O Rating Scale Model demostrou índices de dificuldade entre -0,42 e 0,69 e índices ajustes adequados (Infit/Outfit) entre 0,79 e 1,45 para os itens de ambas as versões e descrição sumarizada dos níveis de theta dos participantes. A Análise de DIF apontou dois itens que não suportavam invariância no parâmetro dificuldade em função das diferenças culturais. Contudo, observou-se invariância destes parâmetros quando avaliados em função do gênero dos participantes de cada amostra.
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 | 0.035 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".