THE FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (SMAF): A CLINICAL-BASED INSTRUMENT FOR MEASUR- ING DISABILITIES AND HANDICAPS IN OLDER PEOPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SMAF (Functional Autonomy Measurement System) is a 29-item scale developed according to the WHO classification of disabilities.It measures functional ability in 5 areas: activities of daily living (ADL) [7 items], mobility [6 items], communication [3 items], mental functions [5 items] and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) [8 items]. For each item,the disability is scored on a 5-point scale:0 (independent), -0.5 (with difficulty), -1 (needs supervision), -2 (needs help), -3 (dependent). Resources available to compensate the disability are also evaluated, and a handicap score is deducted. Stability of the resources is also assessed. A disability score (on -87) can be calculated, together with sub-scores for each dimension. SMAF must be administered by a health professional (nurse or social worker) who scores the subject after obtaining the information, either by questioning the subject and proxies, or by observing and even testing the subject.This instrument was submitted to many validity and reliability studies. It is responsive to interventions, and a change of 5 points or more should be considered the minimal metrically d e t e c t a ble ch a n ge and cl i n i c a l ly significant. Correspondence of the SMAF score with the required nursing-care time and the cost of long-term care, either at home or in different institutional settings,has been established.It has been utilized in many epidemiological and evaluative studies.It is also used in the clinical setting for assessment and follow-up of elderly disabled patients in the institution, in the community and in rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".