MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research method issue: recruiting and retaining subjects in a research study

2008· review· en· W116514716 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Voyer, Sylvie Lauzon, Johanne Collin, Sandy O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Researcher · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers recruitment and retention of study subjects, two vital elements of the research process. Using as an example a Canadian programme to engage older people in physical activity Philippe Voyer, Sylvie Lauzon, Johanne Collin and Sandy O'Brien Cousins describe how these twin challenges can be addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.681
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.706
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6810.706
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0180.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.697
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.022 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse ResearcherSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207