MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130326569 · doi:10.5596/c07-003

Improving access to multilingual health information for newcomers to Canada

2007· article· en· W2130326569 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Victoria Gallo Stampino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsHealth careGovernment (linguistics)ImmigrationWork (physics)BusinessPopulationMultilingualismPolitical scienceInternet privacyKnowledge managementSociologyMedicineComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's immigrant and refugee population is a vulnerable group in our health care system with specific information needs. Newcomers to Canada face certain socioeconomic, cultural–linguistic, and systemic barriers to access to health care that government, social agencies, and health care organizations work to overcome. To address some of the communication barriers, many health organizations develop information resources such as online brochures and education handouts. Several organizations offer specifically tailored multilingual publications to meet newcomers' information needs and write them using cross-cultural approaches. However, multilingual health information may be hard to locate and is not readily available through major Canadian consumer Web sites. This article discusses the advantages of sharing multilingual publications online and asks whether a central portal or repository is a possible solution for making publications more widely available across Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du CanadaSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207