MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056531183 · doi:10.1177/154405910508400713

Validation of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ <sub>11-14</sub> )

2005· article· en· W2056531183 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNew Zealand Dental Association
KeywordsMalocclusionQuality of life (healthcare)Construct validityOral healthMedicineConstruct (python library)Clinical psychologyPsychometricsPsychologyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the use of adult oral-health-related quality-of-life (OHRQoL) measures in supplementing clinical indicators has increased, that for children has lagged behind, because of the difficulties of developing and validating such measures for children. This study examined the construct validity of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(11-14)) in a random sample of 12- and 13-year-old New Zealanders. It was hypothesized that children with more severe malocclusions or greater caries experience would have higher overall (and subscale domain) CPQ(11-14) scores. Children (N = 430) completed the CPQ(11-14) and were examined for malocclusion (Dental Aesthetic Index) and dental caries. There was a distinct gradient in mean CPQ(11-14) scores by malocclusion severity, but there were differences across the four subscales. Children in the worst 25% of the DMFS distribution had higher CPQ(11-14) scores overall and for each of the 4 subscales. The construct validity of the CPQ(11-14) appears to be acceptable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it