Reliability and validity of the Predicting Health Needs of Seniors Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Background'. The "Predicting Health Needs of Seniors Survey" (PHNSS) is designed as a self-a ministered questionnaire identifying community dwelling elderly persons at risk of functional decline and high health care utilization. The questionnaire, developed for a low-income population, was adapted for use in Chinese, French, English and Ojibwe. 'Objectives'. To confirm the questionnaire reliability and construct validity in Chinese, French, English and Ojibwe. To test the predictive validity of the PHNSS. Methods: For each cultural group, the PHNSS was administered to well and physically dependant seniors. Demographics and measures of daily functioning, cognition, mood, and physical performance were collected. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability testing were completed. To test predictive validity, responses to items from the 1996 Aging in Manitoba interviews were used to create a "surrogate" PHNSS score. Telephone interviews established functional status 18 months from baseline. Health claims data wereused to examine home care use, hospitalization and physician visits at 18 months. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".