MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805459260 · doi:10.12968/pnur.2018.29.sup6.s8

Advising those who travel to visit friends and relatives

2018· article· en· W2805459260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn Driver

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Nursing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Primary careTravel medicineMedicineFamily medicineAdvertisingPsychologyPsychiatryGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Those who visit friends and relatives make up nearly one-quarter of international travellers from industrialised countries. They suffer a disproportionate amount of vaccine-preventable and other travel-related illness and are less likely to attend for pre-travel advice than other travellers. Even if they do seek pre-travel advice, research shows that travellers visiting friends and relatives seem less inclined to follow recommendations for preventive strategies. This article looks at potential barriers and strategies for advising this vulnerable group of travellers in primary care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.386 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice NursingSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207