MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929476796 · doi:10.1093/pch/16.3.147

The Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale: A brief bilingual screening tool for identifying feeding problems

2011· article· en· W1929476796 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeConstruct validityScale (ratio)MedicineTest (biology)PediatricsClinical psychologyPsychologyFamily medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To establish the psychometric characteristics of a newly developed, brief bilingual 14-item parent report tool (The Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale [MCH-Feeding Scale]) designed to identify feeding problems in children six months to six years of age. METHODS: To establish construct validity, 198 mothers of children visiting community paediatrician's offices (normative sample) and 174 mothers of children referred to a feeding clinic (clinical sample) completed the scale. Test-retest reliability was obtained by the re-administration of the MCH-Feeding Scale to 25 children in each sample. RESULTS: Excellent construct validity was confirmed when the mean [± SD] scores of the normative and clinical samples were compared (32.65±12.73 versus 60.48±13.04, respectively; P<0.01). Test-retest reliabilities were high for both groups (normative r=0.845, clinical r=0.92). CONCLUSION: The MCH-Feeding Scale can be used by paediatricians and other health care professionals for quick identification of feeding problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.256 · 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