The Spanish Version of the Quality of Life Index
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latino or Spanish-speaking individuals constitute a substantial and growing population in the United States, in addition to their general presence, with cultural variations, throughout Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula. To respond to the needs of this population, a Spanish version of the Quality of Life Index (QLI-Sp) was developed. The QLI, in its various language versions, is a concise instrument for comprehensive, culture-informed, and self-rated assessment of health-rated quality of life. It is composed of 10 dimensions collated from the international literature, including aspects ranging from physical well-being to spiritual fulfillment, as well as a global perception of quality of life. Each item is to be rated on a 10-point line by Latino subjects according to their culture-informed understanding of that concept. The study samples included 60 Latino psychiatric patients (20 outpatient, 20 inpatient, and 20 partial hospitalization) and 20 Latino actively working hospital professionals. Mean time of completion was 2.4 minutes among health professionals and 3.6 minutes among patients. The vast majority of respondents (72% of patients and 1000% of professionals) judged the instrument as easy to use. The test-retest reliability correlation coefficient of the QLI-Sp mean score was .89. The discriminant validity of the QLI-Sp was documented by the highly significant difference obtained between the mean scores of the two samples selected to represent quite different levels of quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it