MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974589233 · doi:10.1109/asonam.2009.51

Predicting User Behaviour to Facilitate Efficient Provision of Health Applications

2009· article· en· W1974589233 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamad El-Hajj, Robert Hayward

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLicenseResource (disambiguation)Usage dataData scienceWorld Wide WebWeb miningHealth careSoftwareSocial network (sociolinguistics)The InternetSocial mediaWeb page

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practical analysis of user behavior patterns in social network and community software is one of the many application of data mining tools. Using data mining techniques, over 100 users of the Vividesk private online network ('desktop') for Canadian healthcare professionals was examined over a four year period for user behavior trends using decision trees (DTs) mining. Vividesk provides users with an online community of research and of practice, enabling clients to use Web 2.0 and social networking principles to enhance their medical research and practice. Our interest rests primarily in usage patterns related to usergroups and classes of applications on these desktops. Some applications link to licensed information resources which can cost thousands of dollars per year to license. As a result, examining application usage data can help generate information on the relative cost effectiveness of the resources for which clients pay. This study presents an initial analysis of data by grouped resource applications as a means of determining whether deeper analysis is warranted. Data was warehoused and mined using a Microsoft Business intelligence tool (cube), using predetermined dimensions. By warehousing and mining desktop application usage through DTs, previously hidden usage patterns were uncovered. The DT experiments revealed various application usage patterns both within and between the desktops. Usergroups within each environment also demonstrated different access patterns at different times. Based on this analysis, further drilling down is warranted to uncover patterns of particular resource use. Exercises such as these will help predict future user behavior and facilitate the planning of desktop resource provision.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207