MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978780197 · doi:10.3928/00989134-20060801-07

The Falls Risk Awareness Questionnaire: Development and Validation for Use With Older Adults

2006· article· en· W2978780197 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTinetti testMedicineFalling (accident)Injury preventionPoison controlPelvisOccupational safety and healthFall preventionGerontologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyGaitSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falling is a significant cause of disability and death among older adults, and assessing awareness of risk factors is the first step to developing falls intervention programs. Older adults who had fallen in the past were more aware of risk factors for falls, and may be receptive to fall risk information following a fall. This may be an opportune time for health care professionals to provide education on risks for falls to prevent further injury. The Falls Risk Awareness Questionnaire (FRAQ) was validated in a range of patients and practice settings, and after further testing, the FRAQ may play an important role in identifying specific differences in the knowledge of risk factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.322 · 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