MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170461844 · doi:10.1783/147118901101194886

User satisfaction: Measurement and interpretation

2001· review· en· W2170461844 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Harris, Martin Westerby, T. S. Hill, Tilly Sellers, Anne Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterpretation (philosophy)User satisfactionHuman–computer interactionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 5 years there has been an increased interest in assessing users' satisfaction with health care services in England. Measuring and interpreting user satisfaction with reproductive and sexual health services can be complex, and efforts have met with varying degrees of success. This paper will summarise the methods that have been used to assess user satisfaction over the past 10 years, describe a different type of approach that has been recently used in England, and provide some suggestions for approaches that may be effective in improving clinical effectiveness in the new millennium.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health CareSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207