Oxford ankle foot questionnaire: Localization in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to literature data, the Oxford Foot Questionnaire for children is a valid instrument for the assessment of complaints and therefore requires adaptation in Russian. AIM: Russian localization of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Localization of the questionnaire was gradually carried out in accordance with international standards. To specify the accuracy of anatomical comprehension of the lower extremity, 35 children aged 516 years old and their parents were interviewed preliminary. For final validation of the Russian version, the pilot testing was performed in 20 children aged 516 years and their parents. RESULTS: As all the interviewed children correctly anatomically specified the leg, 91.4% of them correctly pointed out the foot, and only 20.0% of children, and 57.0% of the parents were able to find the ankle joint, we translated the phrase ankle and foot as стопа. This was represented in the title and text of the questionnaire items. The final questionnaire version survey illustrated that, generally, children and their parents answered all questions without any difficulties, and additions and clarifications were not essential. CONCLUSIONS: This Russian version of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire is the only instrument used for the assessment of different foot complaints in children aged 516 years and parents opinion on how much the existing pathology affects the physical, social, and emotional components of childrens complaints.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".