A French, abridged version of the Hospitals and Hostels Practices Profile Schedule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aims to validate the Hospitals and Hostels Practices Profile Schedule (HHPPS) in the French version according to the statistical requirements of factor analysis and internal consistency, and to arrive at as parsimonious a version of the questionnaire as possible. As no validation of the original English instrument exists to our knowledge, the most parsimonious factor structure suggested by hypothetical constructs was used. Analyses of variance of six categories of residential settings served to underscore their points of convergence and divergence in terms of degree of autonomy allowed to patients. The following seven scales emerged from the analyses: ‘activities: house rules’, ‘activities: morning wake‐up’, ‘health and hygiene’, ‘activities: curfew’, ‘personal effects’, ‘activities: night‐time surveillance’ and ‘meals’. These accounted for 65% of the cumulative explained variance. Of the residential settings considered, supervised apartments allowed patients the most autonomy, compared with psychiatric hospital wards, hostels, nursing homes, foster families and group homes. Aside from its primary role of measuring the degree of autonomy that residential settings allow patients, this questionnaire seems suitable for gauging the adequacy of fit between a patient's needs and available residential facilities. This should help to direct persons with severe and persistent mental disorders towards facilities better tailored to their needs. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".