Nivel de alexitimia y niveles de interpretación del lenguaje simbólico en textos literarios en alumnos de quinto de secundaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation, had like object to determine the correlation between levels of alexithymia and levels of symbolic language in literary texts, in students of 5 th grade of secondary of public and agreement schools of the UGEL Arequipa Norte.This investigation of descriptive-correlational type and no experimental-transectional design war realized with a sample of five schools was used, with 291 subjects, men and women in the last year in the regular basic secondary education.For the purpose drawn, two instruments were applied.The first of them, the Scale of Alexithymia of Toronto TAS-20, of Bagby, Taylor and Parker, 1985-1994 and the second instrument, the test of Interpretation of Symbolic Language in Literary Texts SITELI, submitted to validation of experts.Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the results of both applied instruments and in order to determine the relationship between both tests, inferential statistics were applied.The first part of the analysis of the results indicated that most of the research subjects have a low alexithymia, following this percentage those who have a high alexithymia and finally a not very significant percentage, those who do not have alexithymia.Faced with the interpretation of symbolic language in literary texts, we obtained that the majority reached a medium level, followed by the group that reached the low level and with little difference, the high level continues.In the second part of the analysis, the results suggest that the relationship between the study variables occurred only between the alexithymia Factor III (TAS-20), which is the vii thought oriented towards external details, with the interpretation of symbolic language in literary texts.In the other factors, no relationship has been found.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".