MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507494804 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-678-1-399

An Ontological Model of Behaviour Theory to Generate Personalized Action Plans to Modify Behaviours

2016· article· en· W2507494804 on OpenAlexaff
Wasif Baig, Samina Abidi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOperationalizationOntologyAction (physics)CorrectnessFormative assessmentKnowledge managementProcess managementPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavior change approaches aim to assist patients in achieving self-efficacy in managing their condition. Social cognitive theory (SCT) stipulates self-efficacy as a central element to behavior change and provides constructs to achieve self-efficacy guided by person-specific action plans. In our work, to administer behaviour change in patient with chronic conditions, our approach entails the computerization of SCT-based self-efficacy constructs in order to generate personalized action plans that are suitable to an individual's current care scenario. We have taken a knowledge management approach, whereby we have computerized the SCT-based self-efficacy constructs in terms of a high-level SCT knowledge model that can be operationalized to generate personalized behaviour change action plans. We have collected and computerized behavior change content targeting healthy living and physical activity. Semantic web technologies have been used to develop the SCT knowledge model, represented in terms of an ontology and SWRL rules. The ontological SCT model can inferred to generate personalized self-management action plans for a given patient profile. We present formative evaluation of the clinical correctness and relevance of the generated personalized action plans for a range of test patient profiles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207