Couple Violence and Alexithymia in Women from Nuevo Leon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this paper were: 1) to estimate the levels of couple violence (received and exercised) and alexithymia among women, and 2) to study the relationship among alexithymia and violence. The Questionnaire of Couple Violence and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were applied to a nonprobability sample of 118 Mexican women with a heterosexual partner. Mean of age was 35 years old (SD = 10) ranking from 18 to 57. Regarding marital status, 53 of 118 women (45%) reported being married, 28 (24%) separated, 21 (18%) in free union with a partner, 11 (9%) single, 4 (3%) divorced and 1 (1%) widow. Indices of received violence and exerted violence that vary from 0 to 100 were calculated multiplying reported frequency by reported damage. Comparisons of means for Students t-test, linear correlations, linear regression and path analysis were use for data analysis. Alexithymia (TAS-20 total scores ≥ 61) was found in 42% of women, received violence in 25% (scores of received violence index ≥ 30), and exercised violence in 5% (scores of received violence index ≥ 30). The mean of index of received violence was higher than the one of index of exerted violence (t [117] = 4.15, p < .01). Alexithymia was associated to violence. Its correlation was higher with received violence than with exerted violence. A reactive violence pattern was observed in which alexithymia acts as a risk factor. In this path model, alexithymia (TAS-20 total score) determined both the received damage as the index of exerted violence. The received damage determined the index of exerted violence. The variable of level of education was added as a determinant of the index of exerted violence, owing to model ran out degrees of freedom with only one variable exogenous (alexithymia).The model explained 21% of the variance of exerted violence and 19% of the variance of received damage with a close fit to the data (χ2 [1, N = 118] = 0.14, p = .71, GFI = 1, AGFI = .99, NFI = 1, CFI = 1, and RMSEA = 0). This relationship among alexithymia and violence could probably be due to the adjustment and control problems that alexithymia involves. It is suggested to assess alexithymia in new studies and interventions in couple violence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".