Traduction de <i>l'Occupational Balance Questionnaire</i> en français et sa validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description. Des questionnaires visant à mesurer l’équilibre occupationnel ont été créés ces dernières années, mais ceux disponibles en français sont limités. But. Cette étude visait à traduire et adapter transculturellement l’ Occupational Balance Questionnaire et à examiner la cohérence interne, la fidélité test-retest et la validité convergente de la version en français. Méthodologie. Une validation a été effectuée auprès de personnes adultes au Québec (n = 69) et en Suisse romande (n = 47). Résultats. La cohérence interne est bonne dans les deux régions (α > 0,85). La fidélité test-retest est satisfaisante au Québec (ICC = 0,629 ; p < 0,001), mais une différence significative est relevée entre deux passations en Suisse romande. Une relation significative est démontrée entre l’équilibre occupationnel et l’équilibre de vie (Québec r = 0,47 ; Suisse romande r = 0,52). Conséquences. Ces premiers résultats soutiennent l’utilisation de l’OBQ-français auprès de la population générale de deux régions francophones.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".