MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563949726 · doi:10.1111/jppi.12189

Family Quality of Life in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

2016· article· en· W2563949726 on OpenAlexaff
Heather M. Aldersey, G. Francis, Shana J. Haines, Chun‐Yu Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyDemocracyContext (archaeology)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a critical need to create a reliable, relevant, and culturally appropriate measure of Family Quality of Life (FQOL) in order to evaluate family outcomes and related national family support mechanisms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This study explores Congolese conceptions of FQOL and examines the appropriateness of adapting a common FQOL measurement tool for use in a Congolese context. Data are derived from four focus groups, conducted with 21 family members of persons with disabilities and 2 family advocates in Kinshasa, DRC. Participant conceptions of FQOL were highly similar to common understandings of FQOL globally. Participant discourse identified poverty and resiliency as potentially crucial underlying factors in FQOL in the DRC. FQOL is an important concept to measure in the DRC. Measurement must take poverty and resiliency into consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207