MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898234595 · doi:10.29392//001c.11944

Hand Therapy Assessments for Use with International Technicians (HTAIT)

2018· article· en· W2898234595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Courtney Retzer Vargo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsTechnicianRubricHealth careMedicineRehabilitationMedical educationOccupational therapyNursingPsychologyPhysical therapyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

# Background To determine whether aggregated searches for pregnancy prevention or pregnancy termination predicts US State teenage birth rates. # Methods US birth rate data for the 50 states, and search engine query data (Google Trends) for "condom" and "abortion" were used in an ecological analysis. Multivariable ordinary least squares regression was used to predict state-level birth rates from state-level searches for condom and abortion. # Results The final model accounted for 35% of the variance (R^2^=0.347). Abortion and condom had similar, absolute, standardized parameters (β≈0.5). High state-levels of searches for abortion were associated with higher teenage birth rates, whereas high state-levels of searches for condom were associated with lower teenage birth rates. # Conclusions Google Trends data for abortion and condom can be used to model US state-levels teenage birth rates. This raises the possibility of well targeted, accessible and relevant information for populations wanting to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.013

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 head0.481
Teacher spread0.439 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueJournal of Global Health ReportsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207