Development of a discriminative questionnaire to assess nonphysical aspects of quality of life of dogs
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
OBJECTIVE: To develop a preliminary discriminative questionnaire for assessment of nonphysical aspects of the quality of life (QOL) of pet dogs and evaluate the questionnaire's content validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. STUDY POPULATION: Owners of 120 dogs. PROCEDURE: Each QOL question had 4 response options, representing descending levels of QOL that were equally weighted. A maximum of 38 items contributed to the QOL score. The questionnaire was administered by telephone to owners of dogs with appointments at a veterinary teaching hospital before the appointment. After the appointment, each dog was classified as sick or healthy by use of defined criteria; owners of healthy dogs had a second interview 3 to 4 weeks later. Test-retest reliability (kappa), internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), and respondents' comprehension were used as criteria for excluding an item. RESULTS: There were 77 sick and 43 healthy dogs. Twenty-two QOL questions had significant kappa values (0.11 to 0.91). The Cronbach alpha values for 5 domains of QOL ranged from 0.45 to 0.61, indicating that the domains had moderate internal consistency (homogeneity). The initial pool of 38 items was reduced to 27. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The questionnaire was designed to complement veterinary assessment of dogs' physical health. The questionnaire may be a useful tool in making decisions regarding dogs' QOL.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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