[Reliability and validity of a newly developed tool to be used for the comprehensive geriatric assessment on community elderly].
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 evaluate the reliability and validity of a comprehensive geriatric assessment tool set for community elderly. METHODS: A sample of 574 community elderly (231 males, 343 females) aged 60 to 94 years, were included in the study. Split-half reliability and Chronbach' s α coefficient were used to test the reliability, with Face validity tested by Delphi method. Construct validity was tested, using the Factor Reliability. RESULTS: The split-half reliability coefficient appeared as 0.706. The Chronbach' s α coefficient was 0.652 for the whole questionnaire. The authority coefficient was 0.876, and the Kendall coefficient was 0.408 (P<0.001). Six factors were identified through factor analysis and the factor loading matrix showed that the construct validity was good. CONCLUSION: The tool was recognized as a reliable and validated measure for the comprehensive assessment on community elderly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it