Software Development of an Expert System for Mental Health Care and Diagnosis in the Population Victims of the Armed Conflict in Colombia Complying with Indicator 3.4 of SDG 3 Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the psychometric validation procedure for the creation of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine based on the theory of precision psychology and expert system-type machine learning algorithms. The focus is on individual coping strategies and the factor of reconciliation in victims of armed conflict. In the case of CONSTANCE IA, the Reconciliation Factor was identified from the Psychosocial Disposition Factors in Conflict questionnaire (CDPC). The study aims to establish whether there is a causal relationship with the variables of the Modified Coping Strategies Scale (EEC-M) questionnaire, identifying psychomarkers that would allow for the creation of a short intervention plan in the areas of prevention, promotion, or rehabilitation for conflict victims relocated in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia. A non-experimental methodology with a cross-sectional design was used, with a total of 363 participants. The results highlight that elements related to economic factors, individual condition, and political concerns in the victims explain the conditions required to generate a reconciliation process in the context of reintegrating into civilian life. One of the conclusions is that the use of artificial intelligence enhances the process of psychological care by providing precision in the etiological information of the illness and the data, which enables discrimination between the health status, symptoms, and disease of the victims in order to contribute to the fulfillment of indicator 3.4 of the SDG: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".