MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019748748 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302305

Public Health 101 Nanocourse: A Condensed Educational Tool for Non–Public Health Professionals

2015· article· en· W2019748748 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cherie L. Ramirez, Zofia K. Z. Gajdos, Catherine Kreatsoulas, Myriam C. Afeiche, Morteza Asgarzadeh, Candace C. Nelson, Usheer Kanjee, Alberto J. Caban‐Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPublic healthCourseworkMultidisciplinary approachBiostatisticsMedical educationHealth policyEpidemiologyInternational healthPublic relationsMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows-including those at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)-have somewhat limited opportunities outside of traditional coursework to learn holistically about public health. Because this lack of familiarity could be a barrier to fruitful collaboration across disciplines, HSPH postdocs sought to address this challenge. In response, the Public Health 101 Nanocourse was developed to provide an overview of five core areas of public health (biostatistics, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health policy and management, and social and behavioral sciences) in a two half-day course format. We present our experiences with developing and launching this novel approach to acquainting wider multidisciplinary audiences with the field of public health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.022

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207