Health information triangulation: A complex and agentic practice among young parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In situations of contested knowledge, information seekers may engage in triangulation practices in order to assess which information is right to meet their needs. Triangulation has been much discussed among researchers, but less so among lay populations. This poster presents results related to the triangulation practices of a group of young parents seeking health and parenting information in the Greater Vancouver region of Canada. Young mothers and fathers in this study described and demonstrated multiple types of triangulation in order to assess and make sense of both authoritative and non‐authoritative information. Seeking pathways were varied but could be classified as one of: a) escalating authoritativeness, b) second opinions, c) medical/non‐medical perspective, or d) inclusive triangulation. Engagement in triangulation practices was used both in deference to and as a mode of challenging medical authority. The dominant cultural emphasis on intensive parenting, coupled with widespread access to the Internet, made it possible and in some cases necessary for lay people to engage in “scientific” information practices such as triangulation.
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 | 0.076 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".