MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771113034 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8502

MyVoice National Text Message Survey of Youth Aged 14 to 24 Years: Study Protocol

2017· article· en· W2771113034 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melissa DeJonckheere, Lauren P. Nichols, Michelle H. Moniz, Kendrin R. Sonneville, V. G. Vinod Vydiswaran, Xinyan Zhao, Timothy C. Guetterman, Tammy Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionConfidentialityQualitative propertyProtocol (science)Descriptive statisticsAdolescent healthMedical educationIncentivePsychologyHealth careQualitative researchPublic relationsComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been little progress in adolescent health outcomes in recent decades. Researchers and youth-serving organizations struggle to accurately elicit youth voice and translate youth perspectives into health care policy. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to describe the protocol of the MyVoice Project, a longitudinal mixed methods study designed to engage youth, particularly those not typically included in research. Text messaging surveys are collected, analyzed, and disseminated in real time to leverage youth perspectives to impact policy. METHODS: Youth aged 14 to 24 years are recruited to receive weekly text message surveys on a variety of policy and health topics. The research team, including academic researchers, methodologists, and youth, develop questions through an iterative writing and piloting process. Question topics are elicited from community organizations, researchers, and policy makers to inform salient policies. A youth-centered interactive platform has been developed that automatically sends confidential weekly surveys and incentives to participants. Parental consent is not required because the survey is of minimal risk to participants. Recruitment occurs online (eg, Facebook, Instagram, university health research website) and in person at community events. Weekly surveys collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data are analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data are quickly analyzed using natural language processing and traditional qualitative methods. Mixed methods integration and analysis supports a more in-depth understanding of the research questions. RESULTS: We are currently recruiting and enrolling participants through in-person and online strategies. Question development, weekly data collection, data analysis, and dissemination are in progress. CONCLUSIONS: MyVoice quickly ascertains the thoughts and opinions of youth in real time using a widespread, readily available technology-text messaging. Results are disseminated to researchers, policy makers, and youth-serving organizations through a variety of methods. Policy makers and organizations also share their priority areas with the research team to develop additional question sets to inform important policy decisions. Youth-serving organizations can use results to make decisions to promote youth well-being.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.011

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 head0.732
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.039 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations98
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207