MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063298134 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.88.1.265

Factor Analytic Properties of the Quality of Life Profile: Examination of the Nine Subdomain Quality of Life Model

2001· article· en· W2063298134 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dennis Raphael, Judith Waalen, Alexander G. Karabanow

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Quality (philosophy)Measure (data warehouse)Factor (programming language)GerontologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Structural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsFamily medicineData miningEpistemologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Quality of Life Profile is a 54-item multidimensional measure of quality of life. The measure is based upon a theoretical approach that considers quality of life to include satisfaction with nine subdomains of functioning. To date, the factor structure of this 54-item collection has not been examined. To do so, an examination was made of the factor structure that emerged from an administration to 219 gay men, half of whom were HIV+. Analysis indicated that seven subdomains were clearly represented in seven of the 11 factors that emerged. One subdomain was fractured into two factors and one subdomain did not appear in the factor structure. Two minor factors appeared to represent issues that may be especially important to gay men living in the HIV era. The study provides insights into the structure of quality of life among gay men living in Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207