Alexitimia y dimensiones de apego adulto en estudiantes de posgrado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente investigación tiene como objetivo estudiar la relación entre alexitimia y dimensiones de ansiedad y evitación asociadas al apego en relaciones románticas. Con este fin, se contó con 74 estudiantes de posgrado de una universidad privada de Lima entre 23 y 54 años, con un promedio de edad de 32.5 años. La alexitimia se evaluó mediante una adaptación lingüística a nuestro medio del Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS – 20) y las dimensiones asociadas al apego mediante una adaptación colombiana del Experience in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R). Se analizaron variables sociodemográficas y datos sobre el tiempo y la satisfacción con la relación de pareja actual o la última que se tuvo. Los resultados mostraron una relación positiva entre alexitimia y las dimensiones de ansiedad y evitación en el apego, así como una relación negativa entre estos constructos con la satisfacción y tiempo en las relaciones de pareja. Finalmente, se encontraron diferencias entre personas con y sin pareja actual, de acuerdo al estado civil y entre estilos de apego adulto seguro e inseguros.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".