Comparison between two common methods for reporting cold and diarrhoea symptoms of children in daycare centre research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of children attending day care centres (DCCs) in industrialized countries has refocused attention on the occurrence of infections and infectious diseases in these settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between two methods (parent method vs. educator method) for reporting the occurrence of respiratory and diarrhoeal infections. METHODS: Fifty-two DCCs in Quebec, Canada, participated. Both educators and parents were invited to fill in calendars on which they would indicate the occurrence of colds and diarrhoea. For the parents' method, parents were telephoned biweekly to record their calendar information. For the educators' method, educators returned their calendar pages monthly (following prompting by phone, when necessary). RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-three parents of toddlers participated in the 15-month reporting period between September 1996 and November 1997. The average agreement between the two methods was low (13.5% for colds and 9.8% for diarrhoea). Overall estimates of the incidence rates of respiratory and diarrhoeal infections based on parents' method were higher than those based on educators' method. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' data lead to larger estimations of incidence rates and are probably more valid than educators' data.
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 | 0.147 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".