Assessment of Quality of Life in Adults Living at Charity Homes in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a rising interest in the Quality of Life (QoL) research in the Arabian countries. The study aimed to analyze the association between the health satisfaction, environment, age, and the physical functions to determine the quality of life among adults living in charity homes in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The participants recruited for the study were adults, living in charity homes in Jeddah to analyze the results through a quantitative research design. The sample size included in the study was 136, which included the participants from different charity homes in Jeddah. SF-36 was appropriately used to examine the health status of the participants. WHOQOL-BRIEF questionnaire was used for the collection of primary data at the time of interviews. The statistically significant results have been evaluated through the independent t-test between the groups, based on the characteristics of the participants for average SF-36 domain scores. However, ANOVA test evaluated insignificant results on the basis of educational level as the p-value obtained is greater than the level of significance (0.850>0.05). Positive responses for all four domains of SF-36 instrument have been obtained, which recommended that further improvements in the charity homes is required to provide the awareness regarding the security and medication facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".