MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1863683745 · doi:10.15200/winn.144720.08769

The Quality Checklists for Health Professions Blogs and Podcasts

2015· dataset· en· W1863683745 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle N Colmers, Quinten S. Paterson, Michelle Lin, Brent Thoma, Teresa M. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Winnower · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Medical educationProcess (computing)Computer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blog and podcast use is rising among learners in the health professions. The lack of a standardized method to assess the quality of these resources prompted a research agenda aimed at solving this problem. Through a rigorous research process, a list of 151 quality indicators for blogs and podcasts was formed and subsequently refined to elicit the most important quality indicators. These indicators are presented as Quality Checklists to assist with quality appraisal of medical blogs and podcasts.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreDataset

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe WinnowerSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207