MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898611091 · doi:10.1002/jaba.519

Comparison of prompting procedures to teach internet skills to older adults

2018· article· en· W2898611091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychologyICTSOnline videoInformation and Communications TechnologyVideoconferencingPopulationMultimediaApplied psychologyMedical educationInternet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet and information and communications technologies (ICTs) have been found to produce meaningful social interactions and greater social support among older adults (White et al., ). Despite these benefits, the Internet and ICTs are not widely used among the older-adult population (Cresci, Yarandi, & Morrell, ). The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of video prompting and text-based instructions on the acquisition of three tablet-based tasks: emailing, video calling (FaceTime® application), and searching for a YouTube™ video. Both video prompting and text-based instructions were effective for all three participants, with text-based instructions being slightly more efficient for one participant and video prompting being more efficient for two participants, suggesting that both prompting procedures can be used to teach older adults Internet and ICT skills.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.343 · 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