MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101821090 · doi:10.5993/ajhb.33.5.4

Validity of Random-Digit-Dialing in Recruiting Controls in a Case-Control Study

2009· article· en· W2101821090 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandom digit dialingSocioeconomic statusPopulationCase-control studyDemographyMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthControl (management)Internal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the participating controls represented the underlying population in a colorectal cancer case-control study in a geographically isolated North American population. METHODS: The characteristics of the study controls recruited through Random-digit-dialing (RDD) were compared with those in the corresponding target population estimates. RESULTS: Participating controls were more likely to have higher levels of education and income and were less likely to be smokers. CONCLUSION: Study controls recruited through RDD tend to have higher socioeconomic status, which may lead to overestimation of a number of risk factors in this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.326 · 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