Alexitimia: ¿una clave para entender o un obstáculo para asistir a los autores de violencia doméstica? Viñetas clínicas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este articulo presenta cuatro vinetas clinicas que examinan la expresion y la evolucion de la alexitimia en los usuarios de un servicio belga, Praxis, que ofrece un programa de desarrollo del sentido grupal de la responsabilidad para autores de violencia domestica. Estas vinetas se derivan y complementan los resultados de una investigacion longitudinal que reune a asociaciones de campo e investigadores universitarios tanto en Quebec como en Belgica para evaluar el cambio psicologico de estos hombres al finalizar su tratamiento terapeutico. Los resultados muestran una prevalencia de trastornos alexitimicos y depresivos en los participantes, en comparacion con la poblacion general. La discusion sobre las vinetas hace emerger una hipotesis principal sobre la posible distincion entre la presencia de una alexitimia primaria y de una alexitimia secundaria.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".