MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1622112799 · doi:10.1177/1359105315600234

Validation of a brief form of the Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion questionnaire

2015· article· en· W1622112799 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Dupuis, Stéphanie Baggio, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyCohesion (chemistry)Confirmatory factor analysisInternal consistencyGermanClinical psychologySocial psychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was the validation of a brief form of the Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion questionnaire using data from 5065 men from the "Cohort Study on Substance-Use Risk Factors." A 9-item scale covering three factors was proposed. Excellent indices of internal consistency were measured (α = .93). The confirmatory factor analyses resulted in acceptable fit indices supporting measurement invariance across French and German forms. Significant correlations were found between the brief form of the Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion questionnaire, and satisfaction and self-reported health, providing evidence of the concurrent validity of the scale. Perceived neighborhood social cohesion, and depression and suicide attempts were negatively associated, sustaining the protective effect of perceived social cohesion.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.359 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207