MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483314964

한국과 캐나다의 청소년기 근시안의 생활패턴 비교

2013· article· ko· W2483314964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeong Hee Kim, 이영일, 강수아

Bibliographic record

Venue대한시과학회지 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignificant differenceDemographyPsychologyOptometryReading (process)MedicineMathematicsStatisticsPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In this study, life patterns on Korean and Canadian teenagers with myopia are compared and analyzed. Methods: Refraction was performed to 332 students with myopia in middle and high schools in Gyeonggi-Do and 288 students with myopia in middle and high schools in Toronto, Ontario. Based on Korean refraction items, the same items with Canadian refraction items were selected as the results for refraction. Survey items on a life pattern were established by adding necessary items to used items in previous studies and survey was directly conducted to students who visited an optical shop. Results: The average myopic degree was approximately 2.79D in Korean students and 2.89D in Canadian students and the myopic degree of Canadian students was slightly higher, but there was no statistically significant difference(p>0.05). Short distance work and related factors, such as school hours, classes in private educational institute, homework hours and game hours, were longer in Canadian students than Korean students and there was a significant difference in game hours(p=0.009) and homework hours(p=0.001) between Korea and Canada. Reading distance and computer watching distance were shorter in Canadian students than Korean students and there was no significant difference between two groups(p>0.05). TV watching time was longer in Korean students and TV watching distance was shorter. There was a significant difference in TV watching time and distance between Korea and Canada(p0.05). Lifestyle depending on the myopic level of Korean students were statistically significant in academy class and class time(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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.187

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.402 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한시과학회지Same topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207