MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762828313

DIAGNOSIS BEFORE ACTION: A KAP SURVEY AS BASE LINE FOR A SCmSTOSOMIASIS CONTROL PILOT PROJECT IN KEMISE, WOLLO ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

2017· article· en· W2762828313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elias Gebre Egziabher

Bibliographic record

VenueEthiopian Journal of Health Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathingSchistosomiasisEnvironmental healthMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)SocioeconomicsFamily medicineGeographySociologyPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Findings from a KAP survey as base line for a schistosomiasis control pilot project is reported. illustrating elements of major concern in socio-economic and behavioural areas. The findings show that 50% of the respondents have been informed about schistosomiasIs but only 49% of those informed recognized it as a disease of any severity. Only 5% acknowledged the presence of a person suffering from schistosomiasis in their household and only half of them took the patient for modern medical care. Launderng was found to be one of the most common ways of contact with rivers (60%). followed by bathing (27%). More than a quarter of the respondents have also admitted to the use of the rivers (85%) as well as the protected well. as may be convenient. Most of the respondents use the morning hours for water contact. As far as excretion practices are concerned. 63% of the adults and 50% of the youngsters use latnnes. while the rest use the backyard or other open-fields. The large majority (73%) were willing to partic,pate in the control of schistosomasis. Finally. the need to consider senously excreta disposal practices. water contact pattern. utilization of available health services. knowledge and attitude with regard to schistosomias is discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthiopian Journal of Health DevelopmentSame topicParasites and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207