Adaptation transculturelle en français du <i>Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia</i> (EdFED) <i>Scale</i> : un questionnaire pour évaluer les difficultés à s’alimenter de personnes âgées présentant des troubles cognitifs en centre d’hébergement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia (EdFED) Scale was designed to identify feeding difficulties for people with moderate to severe dementia. Its Canadian-French cross-cultural adaptation was carried out, as part of an experimental study, whose secondary objective was to document its construct validity. A back-translation method was followed. The EdFED-f was used during a meal with 26 elderly residents who had cognitive disorders. There was a significant correlation between EdFED-f scores and energy intakes calculated using a visual estimation of plate wash method (r=-0,50, p=0,009). EdFED-f scores also showed a significant difference according to the percentage of food consumed at meals (p=0,015). These results support the validity of the EdFED-f to assess feeding difficulties among elderly French-speaking Canadians living in residential and long-term care centers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".