MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152057575 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012836

Validité et fidélité de l'Inventaire d'agitation de Cohen-Mansfield

2001· article· en· W2152057575 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Deslauriers, Philippe Landreville, Louise Dicaire, René Verreault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCronbach's alphaConstruct validityReliability (semiconductor)Internal consistencyClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Agitation in older persons is a major problem for the agitated individual and those around him/her. French-language measures of agitation with demonstrated validity and reliability are necessary for research and interventions in the French-speaking community. The goal of this study is to verify the reliability and validity of the “Inventaire d'agitation de Cohen-Mansfield” (IACM), a French version of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. The IACM measures the frequency of 29 agitated behaviours during a two-week period. Ninety-nine residents of a long-term care facility participated in this study. Results demonstrate the inter-rater reliability (r = .72), test-retest reliability (r = .72), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha from .75 to .77), concurrent validity (r = .74) and construct validity (all r are significant, p < .05) of the IACM.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207