Étude de fidélité test-retest de L'Évaluation des Capacités Physiques reliées au Travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional capacity evaluations are used to quantify and qualify the physical abilities of an individual in relation to the physical requirements of an occupation. One major observation associated with functional capacity evaluations is a lack of evidence on their psychometric properties. PURPOSE: This article presents the results of a study on the test-retest reliability of a functional capacity evaluation tool: the Physical Work Performance Evaluation (PWPE). The PWPE is an instrument for evaluating the physical work capacities of individuals with physical limitations resulting from a health problem. METHODS: The PWPE was administered twice to a convenience sample of 30 workers in good health. RESULTS: In the section on 'Dynamic Strength', the tasks demonstrate a good test-retest reliability (0.79 < ICC < 0.91). The three sections and the global score of the PWPE demonstrate a moderate stability (0.43 < kappa > 0.52). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PWPE score should be interpreted with caution and further studies on its psychometric properties will be necessary to clarify its clinical utility.
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 | 0.071 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".