Where Do Families of Children With Epilepsy Obtain Their Information?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A structured interview of 84 families of children with epilepsy followed through the neurology clinic of a tertiary care children's hospital was conducted to assess the epilepsy-specific information sources accessed and the perceived accuracy of these sources. Families accessed a mean of 3.5 sources from or specifically recommended by the clinic or family doctor and 4.1 sources outside these areas. Families of children with intractable epilepsy and higher-educated parents, but not those of higher socioeconomic status, consulted more extensively. The perceived accuracy of information rated highest for clinic-recommended Internet sites (100%), the clinic nurse (97%), and the neurologist (93%). Sources external to the clinic had variable ratings; those with the greatest perceived accuracy included other Internet sites or family members within the medical profession (85% for both) and lay organizations (84%). Friends within the medical profession, other families, and complementary health care providers also ranked highly. Recommendation of sites and books by epilepsy clinics is more helpful than general handouts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".