MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889016613 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00228

Study Protocol: Determining Research Priorities of Young Albertan Families (The Family Research Agenda Initiative Setting Project—FRAISE)—Participatory Action Research

2018· article· en· W2889016613 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katherine Bright, Carla Ginn, Elizabeth Keys, Meredith Brockway, Lianne Tomfohr‐Madsen, Stephanie M. Doane, Karen Benzies

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationHealth Research BoardPolicyWise for Children and FamiliesAlberta InnovatesUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
KeywordsParticipatory action researchAllianceCitizen journalismPublic relationsAction (physics)DisseminationAction researchPsychologyWork (physics)Medical educationMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pregnancy and childrearing can be an exciting and stressful time for new parents. The maternal-child health landscape has changed dramatically over the last few decades and research priorities need to address these rapid changes. There have been limited attempts to engage and collaborate with members of the public to develop research priorities for families who are expecting or parenting an infant to age 24 months. The work that has been completed has attempted to identify parental preference for information delivery and barriers to uptake of parenting programs but has not investigated parental research priorities. Methods: In collaboration with provincial research units and strategic clinical networks, we will use principles of participatory action research as our theoretical framework/method, and a modified James Lind Alliance priority setting approach to prioritize a list of research questions that parents/knowledge users believe will support the health of their families. This will result in a top 10 list of parent/knowledge user-identified research priorities. This project will consist of three phases. In the first phase, we developed a steering committee of parents/knowledge users, healthcare providers, community agencies and researchers to design a survey about health priorities for families. In the second phase, we will distribute the survey to diverse groups of parents/knowledge users/providers and hold a series of meetings to identify and prioritize potential questions from new parents about health issues from conception to age 24 months. In the third phase, we will collaboratively disseminate and translate findings. Discussion: This study will highlight parental health concerns and recommend parent identified research priorities to inform future research projects needed to support the health of families between conception to age 24 months. Understanding the health research priorities of families in the community will help ensure future research contributes to meaningful changes in the health of young children, parents/knowledge users, and families. Ethics: This study and protocol have received ethical approved from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (REB17-0014). Dissemination: The top 10 research priorities will be published and additional findings from the study will be distributed through pamphlets and newsletters.

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)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.014

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 head0.943
GPT teacher head0.772
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207