The value of user feedback: Parent's comments to online health and well‐being information providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Health informatics research usually deals with quantitative feedback from information users. Little is known about how information users' qualitative feedback can be used by information providers. The Naître et grandir website (N&G) provides parents with health and well‐being information during pregnancy and until their children are eight years old. In this study, researchers worked with N&G information providers to implement the Information Assessment Method (IAM) for assessing and improving parenting information. Feedback comments were collected from participants who visited the N&G website during the study period and who completed an IAM questionnaire. A coding manual for the analysis of participants' comments was created and developed by the researchers in partnership with information providers. This coding manual was used to create an online knowledge management system to facilitate all future coding of comments. This system allows website editors to receive feedback from their readers daily, allowing them to act on it more rapidly and, therefore, shortening the feedback to action time. This online system can be adapted by other websites' editors to collect information users' comments and improve their online resources.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".