Evaluation of a Public Library Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals aged 55 and older represent the fastest-growing Internet user group. They are also at higher risk for cancer. Consumer health librarians can teach seniors effective Internet search strategies to access accurate and reliable cancer information. Four Internet workshops were conducted at the Kitchener Public Library with 44 community-dwelling older adults aged 50 to 75. Participants learned how to search the Internet for cancer information using search engines, medical directories, and subject starters. Results of post-workshop questionnaires showed that over 80% of seniors felt comfortable searching independently for Web-based cancer information after the workshop. Searching difficulty decreased from 5.2 pre-workshop to 4.3 post-workshop (1 = very easy; 10 = very difficult). Self-rated understanding (1 = poor understanding; 5 = excellent understanding) of the Internet was also higher post-workshop (3.9/5) compared to pre-workshop (2.4/5). Seventy percent of participants indicated that they would definitely turn to the Internet for cancer information in the future. The library workshops were effective in teaching Internet search skills to older adults. Librarians and health information providers should guide seniors' use of the Internet so they are able to access high quality cancer Web sites.
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 | 0.032 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".