MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2935817637 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n5p59

Exploring Website Preferences for African American Women: An Evaluation of an Internet-Based Source of Health Information on Eating Healthy and Being Active

2019· article· en· W2935817637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naa-Solo Tettey, Barbara Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychological interventionMedicineHealth careGerontologyPsychologyNursingWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Internet-based health interventions continue to be popular and effective, and one area of focus of such interventions is weight loss. Although African-American women are regular users of Internet-based health interventions, there is a dearth of research regarding Internet usage and website preferences of this group. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between website attributes that influence African American women to use health-related websites, their stage of change for using the Internet to access information on health care, and predictor variables for website ratings. METHODS: The study used a backwards stepwise regression analysis to determine the best predictor of high ratings of the Eat Healthy - Be Active web portal and the Rating and Evaluating Health Care Websites Survey to measure website attitudes and beliefs and stage of change for using the computer and Internet to access health care information. The participants were 206 African American women who use the Internet. RESULTS: The regression analysis indicated that the predictor variables were education level, BMI, and weight. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that various factors influence the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions targeted at African-American women. Future research should continue to explore these factors, particularly for groups with higher rates of preventable diseases.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→