"Your Doctor Won’t Tell You This ...": Expert and Lay Perspectives in Health Communication Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate health care provider and lay consumer perspectives in online health communication, information sharing, and use to improve communication that supports healthy everyday life behavior. With Rhetorical Structure Theory analysis, we differentiate discourse structure patterns and communicative goals in provider and consumer answers regarding a chronic condition - diabetes.Nous investiguons les perspectives des professionnels et des usagers du système de soins de santé en matière de communications en ligne, d’échange et d’utilisation d’information médicale pour améliorer les comportements quotidiens sains. À l’aide d’une analyse des réponses basée sur la théorie de la structure rhétorique, nous discriminons les modèles de structure de discours et les objectifs communicationnels des fournisseurs et des usagers concernant une maladie chronique : le diabète.
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 | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".