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 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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