MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1758984287 · doi:10.15353/joci.v9i2.3176

Perceived Benefits Of Remote Data Capturing In Community Home-Based Care: The Caregivers’ Perspective

2012· article· en· W1758984287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nobubele Angel Shozi, Dalenca Pottas, Nicky Mostert-Phipps

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Data collectionWork (physics)Resource (disambiguation)NursingPoint (geometry)PsychologyMedicineSociologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community home-based care (CHBC) is encouraged in developing countries due to the increasing burden on their health care systems. Paper-based recordkeeping practices are the norm in these resource-poor settings. This paper aims to understand the CHBC environment, the daily work activities of caregivers and problems they face with paper-based systems. The paper provides a rich descriptive view of the daily lives of caregivers who volunteer at a CHBC service point in South Africa. Based on this understanding, the paper explores the caregivers' notions of the perceived benefits (and disadvantages) of using mobile phones for data collection at the point of care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207