The International Family Quality of Life Project: Goals and Description of a Survey Tool
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
Abstract The International Family Quality of Life Project, begun in 1997, involves the collaboration of a team of researchers from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States whose aim was to conceptualize “family quality of life” and develop a survey tool. The authors describe the basis for the conceptualization and explain the survey development process. An initial version of the survey (the Family Quality of Life Survey—FQoLS‐2000) was used to collect FQoL data across several countries in the early 2000s. The experiences of survey respondents and administrators and subsequent data analysis suggested modifications that resulted in an updated version—the FQoLS‐2006. This new version focuses on 9 areas of family life: health, finances, family relationships, support from other people, support from disability‐related services, influence of values, careers and planning for careers, leisure and recreation, and community interaction. The authors explore each of these areas in relation to 6 underlying concepts: importance, opportunities, initiative, attainment, stability, and satisfaction. Other sections entail obtaining information on the family make‐up, family member, or members, with intellectual disability, and an overall summary of FQoL. The authors note that information from the FQoLS‐2006 should be useful for a wide variety of purposes related to providing supports to individuals and families.
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 | 0.017 | 0.398 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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