The G8 Heart Health Projects Database: Testing the Compatibility of an Internet-Based Resource with Health Promotion Planning Processes
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
This study examined the context and processes in which health promotion policy and program decisions are made to ensure that an Internet-based information system on heart health promotion programs provides appropriate information for decision makers' needs and is compatible with their decision-making processes. Five focus groups and six individual interviews were conducted with potential users of and contributors to the G8 Heart Health Projects Database. Results suggest that Internet-based systems such as this are seen as useful tools, but will only be used at certain critical points in program development and then, only when they meet several rigorous criteria. Systems must be completely credible and up-to-date, providing instant answers to complex questions about program design, implementation, and effectiveness, with adequate qualitative information for assessing contextual applicability. Participants also provided information about the conditions required if they were to submit project information to the system.
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 | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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