MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121279197 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afq121

Examining three frailty conceptualizations in their ability to predict negative outcomes for home-care clients

2010· article· en· W2121279197 on OpenAlexafffund
Julian J. Armstrong, Paul Stolee, John P. Hirdes, Jeff Poss

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyNursing homesNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: low

Compares three frailty conceptualizations for predicting outcomes in home-care clients; uses the comparison to answer a clinical prediction question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It examines frailty prediction for home-care clients, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Compares frailty constructs to predict home-care outcomes; clinical geriatrics, not research methods.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations161
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207