MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035985455 · doi:10.1145/1971706.1971710

Towards negotiation as a framework for health promoting technology

2011· article· en· W2035985455 on OpenAlex

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

VenueACM SIGHIT Record · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationTechnological changePsychological interventionBehaviour changePromotion (chess)Work (physics)Behavior changeHealth promotionFocus (optics)PsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologySocial psychologyHealth careSocial scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we reflect on the findings of three empirical studies of health-related behavioural change and existing work in the technological and sociomedical domains, to critique emerging technological approaches to promoting health-related behavioural change. The critique challenges what appear to be implicit assumptions about technology's role in promoting health-related behavioural change. It prompts a consideration of whose agenda in being pursued, whose values are being encapsulated, and argues for a rethink and reorientation of technological interventions in this domain. As an alternative to the existing approach we suggest a shift in focus from behavioural change to health promotion, and offer negotiation as a potential framework for future innovations in this area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.287 · 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