Ethno-cultural Preferences in Receipt of Heart Health Information
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We attempted to understand how people of South Asian and Chinese descent prefer to receive health information. METHODS: To achieve this end we conducted a search of academic and grey literature articles published between 1946 and 2016. To be included, articles had to be focused South Asian and Chinese specific ethno-culturally-based preferences of receiving health information. RESULTS: A total of 3478 abstracts were retrieved, of which, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria. We were able to identify South Asian and Chinese people's preferences for and facilitators of receiving health information. South Asians and Chinese preferred health information and programs that were more culturally relevant and appealing, had translations into South Asian and Chinese languages, and used simple terms as opposed to technical jargon. CONCLUSIONS: There is little direction regarding for how to tai- lor health information South Asian and Chinese ethno-cultural groups. Having evidence-based information about how South Asians and Chinese prefer to receive health information has potential to enhance patients' learning and health literacy, improve clinical outcomes, and reduce health disparities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it