MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238674821

Using technology to positively influence dietary knowledge in colorectal clinic patients.

2004· article· en· W2238674821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Dyer, Kathy Buckner, Rachel A. Richardson, Kenneth C. H. Fearon

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThe InternetCohortColorectal cancerFamily medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Public healthNutrition EducationGerontologyInternal medicineCancerNursingWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer is a major public health problem that is strongly associatedwith poor diet. The acceptability and effectiveness of a nutrition education websitewas investigated in those attending cancer-screening clinics. Sixteen subjectswere interviewed using a standardised, validated questionnaire. Resultsdemonstrated that the website was acceptable to those attending colorectal clinics,although six (38%) considered the content too basic. A quarter (n=4, 25%) wasaged over 65 years and three (19%) used the Internet via a third party. Most ofthe cohort (n=10, 63%) used the Internet to look for health information and utilisedthe search engine to find relevant sites. Nutrition knowledge scores appeared toimprove significantly after using the website (p

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University)Same topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207