MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964344658 · doi:10.1002/nur.20201

Using standardized survey items with older adults hospitalized for chronic illness

2007· article· en· W1964344658 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Fox, Souraya Sidani, David L. Streiner

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentComprehensionRelevance (law)PsychologyMEDLINEMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used the stages of the question response model as a framework to discuss the challenges in administering standardized measures to older adults hospitalized with chronic illnesses. Items with complex content and those with negative stems were associated with difficulties during the comprehension stage. Present experience with the subject of the item was a barrier to retrieving past experiences. The lack of relevance of an item's content to the respondent's situation was associated with problems during the judgment stage. The numeric response format of the items was an obstacle during the response stage. Strategies to enhance the validity of the surveys included breaking up, rephrasing, and contextualizing items, and using descriptive response options.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.405 · 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
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207