MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141886557 · doi:10.1177/1524839907309868

Survey Design From the Ground Up: Collaboratively Creating the Toronto Teen Survey

2008· article· en· W2141886557 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Flicker, Adrian Guţă, June Larkin, Susan Flynn, Alycia Fridkin, Robb Travers, Jason D. Pole, Crystal Layne

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaOntario HIV Treatment NetworkPlanned Parenthood TorontoUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupCommunity-based participatory researchParticipatory action researchParticipatory designPublic relationsRelevance (law)Community designCitizen journalismReproductive healthSociologyMedical educationPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Toronto Teen Survey is a community-based participatory research study whose aim is to gather information on the accessibility and relevance of sexual health services for diverse groups of urban youth (13 to 17 years of age). This information will be used to develop a proactive, citywide strategy to improve sexual health outcomes for Toronto adolescents. In this article, the authors focus on the processes of collaboratively developing a survey tool with youth, academics, and community stakeholders. An overview of the project and examples from the design stage are provided. In addition, recommendations are given toward developing best practices when working with young people on research and survey design.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.808
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207