MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065026833 · doi:10.1080/19312450902809367

Challenges in Evaluating Health Communication Campaigns: Defining the Issues

2009· article· en· W2065026833 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Methods and Measures · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsHealth communicationOutcome (game theory)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Management scienceStrengths and weaknessesField (mathematics)PsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there have been many advances in the design and implementation of health communication campaigns, there have been fewer developments in campaign evaluation. The current article closely examines the state of the field of outcome evaluation of health communication campaigns. First, research designs recommended for use in outcome evaluation of campaigns are discussed. Next, reviews of the campaign literature are consulted to examine what designs are actually used in practice. Two commonly used designs, the posttest-only and pretest-posttest designs, are then discussed in greater detail, in particular to point out their methodological weaknesses. Finally, challenges to rigorous evaluation of communication campaigns are discussed and questions related to potential solutions are posed.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.517
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.010 · 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