Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is plenty of health information on the Web, but until recently quality resources created specifically for people aged 10 to 15 were hard to find. As Doug MacDonald, a senior Web writer at Health Canada, explains, most of the health information available for members of this age group is written about, not for, them. “There are lots of consumer health sites,” he says, “but if they have any information about youth health it is usually in the family section and is aimed at the parents, not the youths themselves.” That led MacDonald and others to create a Web site aimed specifically at young Canadians. Health4Kids (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/health4kids/) is designed to answer some of the most pressing questions young people have regarding health matters. MacDonald said the designers first went to the source and asked youths what they wanted in a health information site. They discovered the most pressing need was for help in doing homework assignments related to health care, so the first option available to visitors is Homework Central. The other options are the REAL Health Magazine and Hot (and Cool) Health News. The information is written for an adolescent audience but maintains the quality expected from Health Canada. MacDonald said testing involving students from the Ottawa area showed that visitors use the site not only to answer their immediate questions but also to search for answers to more personal questions about their own health. Topics like alcohol and drug use, smoking, suicide and sex are covered. Another site worth pointing young patients toward is the Yahooligans health page (www.yahooligans.com/Science_and_Nature/Health_and_Safety/), which is similar to the main Yahoo site because of its structured directories of information. However, this information is aimed at a younger audience. The quality of the health content found at Yahooligans is not as high as that at Health4Kids, but there is a wider range of links.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.853 | 0.761 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".