MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2848126713 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/761

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in Influence Maximization: Raising Awareness about HIV among Homeless Youth

2018· article· en· W2848126713 on OpenAlexaff
Amulya Yadav, Bryan Wilder, Eric Rice, Robin Petering, Jaih Craddock, Amanda Yoshioka‐Maxwell, Mary Hemler, Laura Onasch‐Vera, Milind Tambe, Darlene Woo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMultidisciplinary University Research Initiative
KeywordsBridging (networking)UsabilityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Real world dataService providerMaximizationComputer sciencePsychologyService (business)Public relationsApplied psychologyMedical educationSociologyMedicineData scienceSocial psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceComputer securityFamily medicineMarketingHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on results obtained by deploying HEALER and DOSIM (two AI agents for social influence maximization) in the real-world, which assist service providers in maximizing HIV awareness in real-world homeless-youth social networks. These agents recommend key "seed" nodes in social networks, i.e., homeless youth who would maximize HIV awareness in their real-world social network. While prior research on these agents published promising simulation results from the lab, the usability of these AI agents in the real-world was unknown. This paper presents results from three real-world pilot studies involving 173 homeless youth across two different homeless shelters in Los Angeles. The results from these pilot studies illustrate that HEALER and DOSIM outperform the current modus operandi of service providers by ~160% in terms of information spread about HIV among homeless youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207