Le Questionnaire sur l'Inquiétude et l'Anxiété. Validation dans des échantillons non cliniques et cliniques.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que le trouble d'anxiete generalisee (TAG) soit l'un des troubles anxieux les plus frequents, les professionnels de la sante n'arrivent pas a bien le deceler chez leur clientele. Afin d'aider ceux-ci, il existe un instrument autoadministre qui permet d'evaluer les criteres diagnostiques du TAG : le Questionnaire sur l'inquietude et l'anxiete (QIA). Cette recherche comprend trois etudes qui ont mesure les qualites psychometriques du QIA. Les resultats de l'etude 1 indiquent que le QIA determine le degre d'inquietude de maniere specifique et sensible dans un echantillon non clinique. Pour ce qui est de l'etude 2, elle revele que le QIA distingue les patients atteints du TAG des sujets non cliniques. Enfin, les resultats de l'etude 3 demontrent que le QIA obtient un indice de fidelite test-retest satisfaisant dans un echantillon non clinique. Nous sommes donc en mesure d'affirmer que le QIA presente de bonnes qualites psychometriques dans des echantillons non cliniques et cliniques. Puisque le QIA se remplit en quelques minutes, il constitue un precieux outil diagnostique pour les professionnels de la sante.
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 | 0.024 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".