Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a serious health problem that has reached epidemic proportions among Canadian women. This disease, and its concomitant fractures, places a heavy burden on society in terms of human suffering, loss of productivity, death, and health care costs. In keeping with these concerns, a Canadian community health agency has developed a series of workshops that are designed, in part, to educate women about this disease and to encourage them to take appropriate steps to prevent it or to make informed decisions about its treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the outcome of one of these workshops. A semi-experimental design was used to measure any changes in the participants' knowledge about osteoporosis and their prevention and treatment practices regarding this disease. The results were compared to those of a control group that consisted of members of various branches of the Women's Institute who volunteered to participate in the study. The findings indicate that the workshop was effective in increasing the participants' level of knowledge on osteoporosis, an increase that was still evident 6 months following the session. The effect of the workshop on the actual preventive and treatment practices of women who attended, however, was limited to a slight increase in the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and calcium intake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".