Influencia de la alexitimia en la presencia de violencia familiar en mujeres. Arequipa 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente investigación buscó establecer la influencia de la alexitimia en la presencia de violencia familiar en mujeres de Arequipa, 2016. Para tal fin se encuestó una muestra representativa de mujeres víctimas de violencia familiar que acuden a evaluación al Instituto de Medicina legal de Arequipa y a una muestra control de mujeres sin violencia familiar, aplicando la Escala de Alexitimia de Toronto TAS-20 para la evaluación de alexitimia. Se comparan resultados con prueba chi cuadrado y se asocian con cálculo del odds ratio. Se encontró que el 69 % de mujeres víctimas de violencia familiar presenta alexitimia, mientras que se encuentra en 23 % de las no víctimas. Las mujeres que no sufren violencia familiar no presentan alexitimia en 58 % de casos, lo que ocurre en 8 % de víctimas de violencia. Las diferencias fueron significativas (p < 0.05) y la presencia de alexitimia se asocia a un riesgo 15.88 veces mayor de violencia familiar. Se concluye que la alexitimia es un importante factor que se relaciona a la violencia familiar, por lo que deben diseñarse estrategas para mejorar la alexitimia desde etapas tempranas de la vida de la mujer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".