MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203204811 · doi:10.1016/j.respe.2015.10.002

Le protocole de l’intervention mapping : un processus méthodique pour élaborer, implanter et évaluer des programmes en promotion de la santé

2015· article· fr· W2203204811 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Baptiste Fassier, Marion Lamort‐Bouché, Philippe Sarnin, Christine Durif‐Bruckert, Julien Péron, Laurent Letrilliart, M.-J. Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.263
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2630.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRevue d Épidémiologie et de Santé PubliqueSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207