Development and Application of a Tool Designed to Evaluate Web Sites Providing Information on Alzheimer's Disease
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
Informal carers of people with Alzheimer's disease require access to high-quality information, which may be available through the Internet. Tools that have been developed to evaluate the contents of health-related web sites tend to be generic and not specific for diseases or patient groups. The aim of this study was to develop a tool that was specifically designed to evaluate web sites that provide information about Alzheimer's disease for informal carers of people with the disease. The tool was used to evaluate a sample of 15 web sites. The results were compared with those obtained using four generic tools in an earlier study. Several web sites attained high scores using the specific tool, although almost half of the 15 web sites achieved scores of less than 50%. There was a poor correlation between the rankings obtained using the specific tool compared with the generic tool. Web sites generally scored lower using the specific tool compared with one of the generic tools. Further work is required to develop and evaluate the Alzheimer's disease web site evaluation tool to help improve the quality of information available to carers through the Internet.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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