Who's Users? Participation and Empowerment in Socio-Technical Approaches to Health IT Developments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health informatics researchers advocating socio-technical approaches to the design, implementation and evaluation of health information technology (HIT) consistently promote the important role of users. Aside from conventional ethical and legal considerations around their involvement, there are a number of philosophical and methodological issues that have received less attention because of the tendency for researchers to assume the term 'user' is well defined and understood. It is however, evident that there are significant differences amongst users, and differences in how researchers engage, involve and interact with them during health IT developments. Failure to acknowledge these differences and their impact on Health IT developments makes comparisons across different studies problematic and raises fundamental questions about participation and empowerment of end-users in our developments. This paper re-examines the term user in the context of socio-technical approaches to HIT and presents a preliminary approach to differentiating between types of users and our changing expectations of their roles in enhancing different HIT projects across design, implementation and evaluation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it