University-Based Peer Health Education in China: The Shantou Experience
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
OBJECTIVE: University-based peer health education is a recent development in China. The authors evaluated a newly implemented program in the Guangdong province. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: In September 2006, the authors conducted a cross-sectional study using self-administered questionnaires on 30 peer educators and 247 students. RESULTS: All peer educators and the majority of student respondents positively evaluated the program. Although students preferred to seek health information online, approximately one-quarter of the student respondents would contact peer educators. Third-year students were more than twice as likely (29.1%) to contact peer educators than were fourth-year students (13.1%). The peer educators perceived diet, physical activity, safer sex, and mental health as the most relevant student health topics. Peer educators cited acquiring factual information and medical skills, rather than personal development, as the most important things learned from the program. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some promising results, Western-based peer education models may require cultural adaptation for greater effectiveness in China.
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 | 0.003 | 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