MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749194391 · doi:10.1188/17.onf.521-522

Health Literacy: What Do You Know?

2017· article· en· W2749194391 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineActive listeningConfusionNeed to knowHealth literacyLiteracyNursingMedical educationHealth carePsychotherapistPedagogyPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part of my clinical role involves educating and informing patients about the risks and benefits of the various treatment options related to prostate cancer. Like many bed- or chairside nurses, I spend a lot of time talking and listening to my patients. I am sometimes surprised when I get a call from a patient who seemingly did not hear or understand something that I told him or her. I know I told the patient, and I think I am a good educator, so why the confusion? The answer is, in part, simple-health literacy (or the lack thereof). .

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207