Validation de l’outil d’évaluation de l’aptitude (OÉA): Une étude Delphi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western societies currently face the aging of their populations. New challenges are experienced by health professionals who are involved in competency assessment that may necessitate a public guardianship. This assessment is complex and its consequences are significant. The Competency Assessment Tool (CAT) can be used to provide a rigorous, objective and ethical evaluation by an interdisciplinary team. The purpose of this study was to validate the CAT. To do this, a Delphi study was conducted among 33 experts from five professions (social worker, occupational therapist, physician, neuropsychologist and nurse), working in seven administrative regions of Quebec. An expert consensus on the content of the CAT was obtained in the first round of consultation. Thus, this study has validated an assessment and decision-making process (CAT) designed for health and social professionals. This decision model can guide the competency assessment of the ability of persons with cognitive impairment to take care of themselves and to manage their finances. Further studies will be necessary to support use of the CAT in practice.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".