MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891774820 · doi:10.2196/10763

Identifying Consumers Who Search for Long-Term Care on the Web: Latent Class Analysis

2018· article· en· W2891774820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Darren Liu, Takashi Yamashita, Betty Burston

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)The InternetLatent class modelClass (philosophy)BusinessMarket segmentationMarketingPrimary careAdvertisingMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceFamily medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Because the internet has become a primary means of communication in the long-term care (LTC) and health care industry, an elevated understanding of market segmentation among LTC consumers is an indispensable step to responding to the informational needs of consumers. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study was designed to identify underlying market segments of the LTC consumers who seek Web-based information. METHODS: Data on US adult internet users (n=2018) were derived from 2010 Pew Internet and America Life Project. Latent class analysis was employed to identify underlying market segments of LTC Web-based information seekers. RESULTS: Web-based LTC information seekers were classified into the following 2 subgroups: heavy and light Web-based information seekers. Overall, 1 in 4 heavy Web-based information seekers used the internet for LTC information, whereas only 2% of the light information seekers did so. The heavy information seekers were also significantly more likely than light users to search the internet for all other health information, such as a specific disease and treatment and medical facilities. The heavy Web-based information seekers were more likely to be younger, female, highly educated, chronic disease patients, caregivers, and frequent internet users in general than the light Web-based information seekers. CONCLUSIONS: To effectively communicate with their consumers, providers who target Web-based LTC information seekers can more carefully align their informational offerings with the specific needs of each subsegment of LTC markets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207