MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531630500 · doi:10.3402/qhw.v11.32891

A mixed methods study of Canadian adolescents’ perceptions of health

2016· article· en· W2531630500 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valerie Michaelson, William Pickett, Eleanor Vandemeer, Brian Taylor, Colleen Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionInterpretation (philosophy)PsychologyHealth promotionQualitative researchSocial psychologyMultimethodologyHealth belief modelQualitative propertyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyPublic healthMedicineSociologyNursingPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health perceptions adopted during childhood lay foundations for adult health trajectories and experiences. This study used a sequential mixed methods design to generate new evidence about child perceptions of health in two samples of Canadian children. A core qualitative study was followed by a complementary quantitative analysis to aid interpretation. Generational theory was used as a lens through which to interpret all data. Findings suggested that good health is perceived as customized and subjective. The strengths and liabilities of these perceptions are discussed, as well as implications for health promotion and prevention strategies. Through intentional consideration of the perspectives of this population group, this study makes both empirical and theoretical contributions to appreciating how cultural environments shape health perceptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0140.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-BeingSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207