Programa psicoeducativo para personas adultas mayores: una propuesta desde el enfoque humanista que promueve bienestar psicológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is the final result of the sum of chronological, functional, and social age. Psychological well-being is the effort to perfect one's potential. Objective: to propose a psychoeducational program with a humanistic approach that promotes psychological well-being in institutionalized older adults. Method: it is proposed to work with a non-probability sampling and an intentional selection. Participants, men and women 65 years of age and over. Approach: qualitative and the design is pre-experimental. The type of study is descriptive of transversal temporality. Instruments: Sociodemographic data sheets, Mini Mental Examination Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Riff's Scale of Psychological Well-being, Semi-structured individual interview guide and Evolution notes. The results: It is proposed to work in 2 weekly frequencies for 10 sessions divided into 3 stages: diagnosis, intervention, evaluation and closure. Conclusions: It is necessary to offer a program that includes the psychological sphere and promotes the dimensions of autonomy, self-acceptance and relationships with others. Recommendations: Multidisciplinary care and insist on public policies aimed at older 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".