Cross‐cultural study of person‐centred quality of life domains and indicators: a replication
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
BACKGROUND: The increased use of the quality of life (QOL) concept internationally suggests the need to evaluate its etic (universal) and emic (culture-bound) properties. This study replicated and expanded a previous cross-cultural study on QOL. METHOD: The three respondent groups (consumers, parents and professionals; total n = 781) were from four European countries: France, Belgium, Italy and Poland. The Cross Cultural Survey of Quality of Life Indicators was used to assess the importance and use of eight core dimensions of QOL. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) the etic properties would be demonstrated if there were similar profiles for the respondent and geographical groups, and if indicators grouped into the proposed QOL domains; and (2) the emic properties would be demonstrated if there were significant differences on scores across groups. RESULTS: Results supported both hypotheses. CONCLUSION: The present study replicated the findings of a large cross-cultural study that the QOL construct has both etic and emic properties.
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 | 0.046 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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