<i>Implementing the British Columbia Nutrition Survey:</i> Perspectives of Interviewers and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Columbia Nutrition Survey was the last of ten provincial nutrition surveys completed between 1988 and 1999. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of British Columbia Nutrition Survey procedures, as perceived by 27 public health nurses and dietitians directly involved in data collection. Data for the process evaluation were collected through in-depth telephone interviews, during which interviewers and facilitators described their experiences working for the survey. Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts identified codes that were then organized into eight categories, including issues arising from interviewer and facilitator training, challenges in recruiting survey participants, reflections on safety for survey personnel and participants, facilitators' key role, the flexibility required to implement the protocol, and communication within the survey research team. Two final categories related to rewarding aspects of the job: insights affecting professional practice, and meeting survey participants and personnel. Evaluation findings show the importance of establishing open communication between research planners and those conducting surveys. This communication is needed to ensure that workers' needs are met, the quality of the study is maximized, and evaluations of study protocols include the perspectives of those directly involved in data collection.
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 | 0.098 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".