Evaluation of the acceptability of a CD-Rom as a health promotion tool for Inuit in Ottawa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few health promotion tools for urban Inuit, and there is a specific dearth of evaluations on such tools. OBJECTIVE: The current study used a community-specific approach in the evaluation of a health promotion tool, based on an urban Inuit community's preferences of health knowledge sources and distribution strategies. In partnership with the Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Health Team in Ottawa, a CD-Rom was developed featuring an Inuk Elder presenting prenatal health messages in both Inuktitut and English. Also, relevant evaluation materials were developed. DESIGN: Using a mixed methods approach, 40 participants completed interviews prior to viewing the CD-Rom and participated in a focus group at follow-up. Questionnaires were also completed pre- and post-viewing to assess changes between expectations and reactions in order to document acceptability. RESULTS: Significant increases were found on satisfaction, acceptability of medium and relevance of content ratings. Qualitative findings also included (a) interest, uncertainty and conditional interest prior to viewing; and (b) positive evaluations of the CD-Rom. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that CD-Rom technology has the potential for health promotion for urban Inuit, and the community-specific evaluation approach yielded useful information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".