MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113914521 · doi:10.1177/0748175615578756

Differences Between Mothers’ and Fathers’ Ratings of Family Functioning With the Family Assessment Device

2015· article· en· W2113914521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dawson Cooke, Ida Marais, Robert Cavanagh, Garth Kendall, Lynn Priddis

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRasch modelPsychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyPolytomous Rasch modelQuarter (Canadian coin)Developmental psychologyItem response theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychometric properties of the General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device were examined using the Rasch Model (N = 237 couples). Mothers’ and fathers’ ratings of the General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device are recommended, provided these are analyzed separately. More than a quarter of couples differed significantly in their ratings.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement and Evaluation in Counseling and DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207