MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135982398 · doi:10.1017/s0959259810000316

Providing health information to older adults

2010· article· en· W2135982398 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl A Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Clinical Gerontology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegibilityReading (process)Presentation (obstetrics)Health literacyDisk formattingHealth informationHealth professionalsPsychologyTest (biology)GerontologyMedicineApplied psychologyComputer scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Providing information to older adults is essential for informed decision-making and good health. Because there are significant deficits in providing information verbally, health professionals must use written information as well. Most studies have focused on the content and literacy of documents. However, the legibility and formatting are critically important for older adults, who are more likely to suffer with visual impairment. Providing written information that is tested for appropriate reading level and for presentation is necessary to ensure that older adults can use the information given. There are a number of tools available that test these aspects of written information, but not one tool that is universally accepted. Further research regarding the design and presentation of written information for older adults is necessary.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.390 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Clinical GerontologySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207