If You Build It, Who Will Come? A Description of User Characteristics and Experiences With the McMaster Optimal Aging Portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The McMaster Optimal Aging Portal (the Portal) aims to increase access to evidence-based health information. We would now like to understand who uses the Portal, why, and for what, and elicit feedback and suggestions for future initiatives. Methods: An online survey of users collected data on demographics, eHealth literacy, Internet use, information-seeking behavior, site acceptability and perceived impact on health behaviors, participant satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements using mixed methods. Results: Participants ( n = 163, age 69.8 ± 8.6 years) were predominantly female (76%), married (67%), retired (80%), and well-educated with very good/excellent health (55%). The Portal was easy to use (83%) and relevant (80%), with 68% intending to, and 48% having changed behavior after using the Portal. A number of suggestions for improvement were obtained. Discussion: A better understanding of users’ characteristics, needs, and preferences will allow us to improve content, target groups who are not engaging with the Portal, and plan future directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".