MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218292543 · doi:10.4000/communiquer.514

Usages sociaux d’Internet-santé et stratégies de communication dans la population LGBT canadienne

2013· article· fr· W2218292543 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph J. Lévy, Jean Dumas, Line Chamberland, Yannick Chicoine Braithwaite

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de communication sociale et publique · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux CavendishUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Afin de cerner les usages sociaux d’Internet dans la recherche d’informations sur la santé, 2187 LGBT canadiens ont répondu à un questionnaire en ligne. L’état de santé, la variable utilisée dans l’évaluation des usages d’Internet, dépend des sous-groupes. La majorité des sites visités, associés à des organismes communautaires, s’adressent à la population générale, aux LGBT ou à des groupes spécifiques. Les thèmes recherchés, surtout avec les moteurs de recherche, sont variés et portent surtout sur les modes de vie, les médicaments, des maladies ou des symptômes spécifiques. Pour plusieurs dimensions, l’évaluation est très positive, mais la qualité de l’information reste plus douteuse. La satisfaction dépend des dimensions considérées et les informations sont partagées avec l’entourage ou le médecin. L’état de santé de santé module les répercussions, plus fortes dans le cas de la santé physique, du mode de gestion de la santé et du rapport aux professionnels de la santé.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de communication sociale et publiqueSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207