MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

E-Health Behaviors

2012· book-chapter· en· W2801788620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah E. Linares, Kaveri Subrahmanyam

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthHealth informaticsThe InternetHealth informationHealth communicationPsychologyPublic healthMedical educationPublic relationsNursingMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-health (eHealth) is an emerging field of health communication encompassing medical informatics, public health, and business where health information and services are exchanged through electronic processes. The current leading researchers in e-health include: Dr. Gunther Eysenbach from University of Toronto on health information and decision-making; Dr. David Gustafson from University of Wisconsin, Madison on interactive support systems; The Pew Internet and American Life Project on chronicling e-health use; Dr. Neil Coulson from University of Nottingham on online support group communication, and Dr. Elizabeth Murray from University College London, who develops online treatments. This entry summarizes research on e-health behaviors: seeking health information online, the impact of patient-to-patient communication on health, and receiving treatment online. Future directions for research on e-health behaviors include exploring the disadvantages of online support groups, research on minority populations, development of online randomized controlled trial methodology, and longitudinal research examining e-health behaviors over time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.032

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooks→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→