Cross-cultural adaptation of the Filial Responsibility protocol for use in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cross-cultural adaptation of the Filial Responsibility protocol for use in Brazil with adult child caregivers for elderly parents. METHOD: A methodological study that included the steps of initial translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, committee of experts, pre-test, evaluation of psychometric measures and submission to authors. The protocol comprises a qualitative step, closed questions and seven scales: Filial Expectation, Subsidiary Compassion, Caregiver burden, Life Satisfaction, Personal Well-being and Quality of Relationships. RESULTS: The final version in Portuguese was applied, through a pre-test, to a sample of 30 caregivers for elderly parents. In order to verify internal consistency, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficient: Filial Expectation (α = 0.64), Filial Duty (α = 0.65), Satisfaction with Life (α = 0.75), Personal Wellbeing (α = 0.87). FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Brazilian version presented good conceptual and face equivalence. The results demonstrate that the concepts used in the Canadian protocol are applicable in the Brazilian context.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".