A Complementary Alternative Medicine Questionnaire for Young Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited information exists on how adolescents decide to use complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). There are also no instruments specific to CAM, for the young adult population, which makes it difficult to explore knowledge in this area. The purpose of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the CAM Questionnaire for Young Adults which measures young adults' attitudes about CAM. Participants for this cross-sectional survey were selected from enrolled undergraduate students at an urban university. Factor analysis identified three subscales: 1) positive beliefs about CAM; 2) environmental influence; and 3) psychological comfort. The scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79) and shows beginning demonstration of validity. Its use in this sample revealed that young adults who are female and have used CAM in the past for preventing or treating illness have the most positive attitude towards CAM and the greatest likelihood for continued use. The implication that prevention may play a role in young adults' attitudes about CAM is a potential focus for future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it