MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993700432 · doi:10.30552/ejhr.v3i1.52

Inteligencia emocional, calidad de vida y alexitimia en personas mayores institucionalizadas

2017· article· es· W2993700432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Maria Suárez Bermúdez, Inmaculada Méndez, Isabel García-Munuera

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of health research · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicAging, Health, and Disability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPersonaPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the stage of old age it is important the study of emotions and how these affect to adaptation and quality of life of older people. Some authors show up the importance of emotional intelligence and quality of life. Alexithymia refers to the difficulty to understand and identify feelings and those of others and externally oriented thinking. The aim is study the relationship between emotional intelligence, quality of life and alexithymia in a group of elderly. The participants were 25 elderly in an institutionalized center of Murcia; there were 12 men. The questionnaires were used: The brief inventory of emotional intelligence for major (EQ-I-M20), the questionnaire of qualit evaluation of life in residential context (CECAVIR) and The brief scale of alexitimia of Toronto (TAS-20). It found significant positive correlations between: the difficulty to identify feelings and the social and familiar relations; the difficulty to identify feelings and satisfaction with the life; the difficulty to describe feelings and the social and familiar relations as well as a significant negative correlation between difficulty to describe feelings and adaptability. The results will allow to advance in the implantation of activities that promote the emotional development of the elderly institutionalized persons in favor of his quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of health researchSame topicAging, Health, and DisabilityFrench-language works237,207