L’adaptation d’une échelle composite d’évaluation des comportements de promotion de la santé pour les adolescents et les jeunes adultes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les outils d’évaluation des comportements de promotion de la santé abondent en anglais alors qu’ils sont rares, voire quasi-inexistants en français. Cet article vise à valider un questionnaire composite d’identification des comportements pro-santé ou à risque. Les dix étapes de l’adaptation des tests/échelles de mesure psychologique de Gana et al. (2021) ont été appliquées aux données collectées auprès de 343 adolescents et jeunes adultes de 15-25 ans (moyenne = 17,6 ± 1,76) ayant rempli un questionnaire de 51 items issus de trois échelles préexistantes. Les analyses factorielles exploratoires et confirmatoires supportent la structure à huit dimensions avec 27 items expliquant 56,69 % des variances : santé spirituelle, relation interpersonnelle, exercice physique, gestion du stress, appréciation de la vie, hygiène du sommeil, responsabilité en santé et soutien social. Le questionnaire composite d’évaluation des comportements de promotion de santé (AHPB-27) est donc valide pour identifier des comportements de promotion de la santé des adolescents et des jeunes adultes en francophonie.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".