MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meeting health information needs of people with HIV/AIDS: sources and means of collaboration

2008· article· en· W2143796126 on OpenAlex
Laura O’Grady

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Information & Libraries Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Internet-based applications, in particular those that allow communication, have great potential to meet information needs. Limited research has indicated that people with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS; PHAs) use these technologies, but it has not yet been examined how resources are used collaboratively and in conjunction with offline sources. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine in what ways PHAs collaborate to meet treatment information needs and what role Internet-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) played in meeting this goal. METHODS: This exploratory study was implemented using surveys and focus groups with 23 participants in Toronto, Canada. The purposive sample included men and women. RESULTS: A variety of both off- and online resources were used to learn about HIV/AIDS treatment information, including web-based and print. All participants were communicating with others, primarily in person, and most desired anecdotal treatment information. However, few reported using CMC to accomplish this goal. Harris and Dewdney's Principles of Information Seeking was used to frame the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite technical proficiency with CMC, few participants in this study reported use of this communication tool. Information professionals need to ensure access to HIV health information including those in remote areas who have fewer resources.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.025
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.308 · 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