Validation d’une échelle d’observation comportementale du confort d’enfants brûlés lors de procédures douloureuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interdisciplinary team of a pediatric university teaching hospital in the Montreal area, who treats annually a considerable number of child burn victims, developed a behavioral observation scale on the comfort of children of 7 years of age and less during painful procedures «Échelle d’observation comportementale du confort d’enfants brûlés» (OCCEB- BECCO). The goal of this study was to initiate the validation of OCCEB-BECCO, a new tool for evaluation of comfort for child burn victims. With samples of 16 patients and 5 experts, we proceeded to the evaluation of content validity, internal consistency and criterion validity. Results have shown adequate content validity, internal consistency with (T1) r = 0,96 p < 0,0001, (T2) r = 0,95 p < 0,0001, (T3) r = 0,95 p < 0,0001 and criterion validity with Cronbach alpha at 0,82. A future study with a larger sample and on a longer period of time would be required to pursue validation of this new scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".