MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032948224 · doi:10.1300/j381v07n04_02

Libraries as Partners in Health Literacy

2003· article· en· W2032948224 on OpenAlex
Erica Burnham

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Health on the Internet · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyHealth careLiteracyReading (process)Health educationDocumentationPublic relationsMedicineHealth informationHealth promotionInformation literacyMedical educationPublic healthNursingPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Health literacy is becoming an important issue for nurses, pharmacists, health educators, and other health professionals. Studies are currently suggesting that low health literacy affects health care budgets, health outcomes, and adherence to medication regimens, not to mention an individual's ability to control or prevent illness and disease. At the same time, the amount of health information available to consumers increases every day, most of it written for a highly literate audience. National and international initiatives are developing to address the issue of health literacy, but few consider the library an obvious partner for these important projects. This paper overviews the key issues surrounding health literacy, outlining several initiatives and the methodologies used to evaluate levels of health literacy. Strategies for developing easy-to-read health materials will be explored. Finally, possible roles for libraries and librarians in health literacy will be examined, along with suggestions for further reading.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.414 · 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