MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W127077936 · doi:10.1023/a:1013811109820

Does electronic implementation of questionnaires used in asthma alter responses compared to paper implementation?

2001· article· en· W127077936 on OpenAlexaff
J. Jaime, I. Caro, Josie Caro, F. Wouters, Elizabeth F. Juniper

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality of Life Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationRespondentMedicineAsthmaQuality of life (healthcare)RecallQuality of Life ResearchPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsPublic healthInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.172
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.542
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1720.542
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.533
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQuality of Life ResearchSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207