MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993388948 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2011.07.008

Can eHealth Tools Enable Health Organizations to Reach Their Target Audience?

2011· article· en· W1993388948 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Zbib, Corinne Hodgson, Sarah Calderwood

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthHealth promotionOverweightStroke (engine)Promotion (chess)BusinessMedicinePopulationPublic relationsMedical educationNursingHealth careEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceObesityPublic healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from the health risk assessment operated by the Heart and Stroke Foundation found users were more likely to be female; married; have completed post secondary education; and report hypertension, stroke, or being overweight or obese. In developing and operating eHealth tools for health promotion, organizations should compare users to their target population(s). eHealth tools may not be optimal for reaching some higher-risk sub-groups, and a range of social marketing approaches may be required.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207