MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965708819 · doi:10.1177/1074840706297789

Parent as Proxy Reporting

2007· review· en· W1965708819 on OpenAlex
Diana Sherifali, Janet Pinelli

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Proxy (statistics)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)MedicinePsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved disease management in children has resulted in an increased interest in the quality of life in children. Quality of life research in children may enlist either the substitute or complementary perspective. Much of the quality of life literature has been guided by the substitute perspective, which infers that parents may best report their child's quality of life. However, the complementary perspective values both parent and child perspectives equally. The purpose of this article was to critically review the quality of life literature with respect to children with diabetes. Limitations in the literature were addressed as conceptual and methodological, demographic, and underlying proxy perspectives. Benefits and limitations of quality of life measurements and perspectives were also discussed. Recommendations and future implications for quality of life research in children extend current understanding from both substitute and complementary perspectives.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.244 · 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