MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2152113564 · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-12

Psychometric properties of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument: a systematic review

2014· review· en· W2152113564 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marla Beauchamp, Catherine Schmidt, Mette Merete Pedersen, Jonathan F. Bean, Alan M. Jette

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Public Health ServiceFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western AustraliaNational Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsConstruct validityMedicineReliability (semiconductor)RehabilitationConstruct (python library)Convergent validityGerontologyClinical psychologyCriterion validityQuality of life (healthcare)PsychometricsSystematic reviewMEDLINEPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations113
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Geriatrics→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→