MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172719365 · doi:10.1089/10949310050191746

Evaluating the Women's Health Matters Website

2000· article· en· W2172719365 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Marton

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberPsychology & Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsThe InternetHypertextSeekersWorld Wide WebHealth informationPsychologyInternet privacyPerceptionHealth careMedical educationMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the findings of two evaluation sessions for the Women's Health Matters (WHM) website, a women's health website developed by Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre and The Centre for Research in Women's Health. Participants were women, primarily between the ages of 20 and 29, well educated, and enrolled in university degree programs. They have been using the computer and Internet for years, in particular, E-mail andthe World Wide Web. While they conduct web searches, most are not health information seekers on the web. However, they have positive attitudes toward the delivery of health information on the Internet. Participants viewed the WHM website prototype in a computer laboratory. They then completed several search tasks and a questionnaire, and discussed their perceptions of the website in a moderated focus group setting. They found the text-based content on the WHM website interesting, easy to understand, and useful. However, they experienced difficulty navigating the website using the website's navigational elements - hypertext links and search engine. They wanted to see more graphical elements added to the website, as well as communications channels, such as newsgroups, listserves and chatrooms, provided they are moderated by health care practitioners. They were not favorably disposed toward advertising on health websites.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyberPsychology & BehaviorSame topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207