Do we need to understand the technology to get to the science? A systematic review of the concept of computer literacy in preventive health programs
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
Objective To systematically review definitions and descriptions of computer literacy as related to preventive health education programs. Method A systematic review of the concept of computer literacy as related to preventive health education was conducted. Empirical studies published between 1994 and 2007 on prevention education programs with a computer literacy component were found using medical/health, communication, information science and education databases. Results A total of 464 citations were retrieved from 12 databases using specific search terms. Six articles met the inclusion criteria of: search terms in title, abstract and/or key words; peer-reviewed; original empirical research; and written in English. Conclusion Findings show limited and inconsistent definitions of computer literacy in the literature on computer-based prevention interventions. Without a clear construct of computer literacy, it will be difficult to determine the impact of such programs on health information seeking and, ultimately, health status.
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 | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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