Evaluating the Women's Health Matters Website
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it