Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent On the Net column (CMAJ 2001;164[6]:860), Dr. Michelle Greiver described the Web site she designed to tell patients about her practice. Now an American otolaryngologist has asked patients what they actually want to see on physician-designed Web sites. At the recent meeting of the Head and Neck Surgery Foundation of the American Academy of Otolaryngology (www.entnet.org), Dr. Steven Mobley presented results from his ongoing study of Internet use by otolaryngology patients. Using a standardized survey, he and his colleagues asked patients to tell them how they currently use the Internet. In addition, the patients were asked what they would actually like to see on the Internet. Mobley found that age appears to have no impact on Internet use. Older patients used it as often as younger ones to troll for health information, but usage did increase according to income level. Respondents had used the Internet 1.9 times during the past year to search for health information; 41% reported they looked for information about a specific symptom or diagnosis. Twenty-one percent looked for a physician on the Internet, but 30% of their searches were unsuccessful. Mobley determined that patients want to learn details of their physician's education, experience and malpractice record. They also want to make appointments over the Internet and to access things like laboratory and test results. He concluded that physicians' most vital role in dealing with patients via the Internet is to provide information that is reliable, secure and — above all — useful. For more information about what details physicians should provide on their Web sites, visit Medscape's primer (www.medscape.com/medscape/homepages), which includes a sample home page.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.033 |
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".