MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901508459 · doi:10.1177/2374373518809008

Patient Education Tools: Using Pets to Empower Patients’ Self-care—A Pilot Study

2018· article· en· W2901508459 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Hodgson, Marcia Darling, Alan A. Monavvari, D.A. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Experience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMarkham Stouffville HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingPrimary careMedicineHealth educationPsychologyFamily medicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six patient education tools were designed to guide patients' self-care by activating pets to positively impact social determinants of health. Distributed to both pet owners and primary health-care providers, each tool addressed a specific area of health and outlined a pet-related activity. Surveys questioned how participants used the tools and their impact on health and health care. Pet owners shared the tools with family and friends. Primary health-care providers used the tools to target specific health concerns. Primary health-care providers reported that working with the tools improved rapport with their patients.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.348 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient ExperienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207