Reliability Generalization of Responses by Care Providers to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale is among the most commonly used measures of depressive symptomatology. Despite this, a paucity of research has been undertaken to examine the psychometric properties of responses to this scale. This meta-analytic study examined previously published studies of caregiving to identify factors that predict variance in reliability estimates (i.e., reliability generalization). The results suggest that the type of care recipient, the relationship to the care recipient, and CES-D Scale length each statistically affect reliability estimates. Only the number of items, however, appears to have a substantive effect. It is thus recommended that the original 20-item scale be used. Overall, it appears that responses to the CES-D Scale by care providers are largely reliable across these populations. The findings of an informal survey of authors suggest an incomplete awareness and appreciation for issues regarding reliability induction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it