MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948279515 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.05.037

The Niakhar Social Networks and Health Project

2019· article· en· W2948279515 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Delaunay, Laëtitia Douillot, Steven Rytina, Yacine Boujija, Simona Bignami, Sadio Ba Gning, Loubna Belaid, Babak Fotouhi, Abdourahmane Senghor, John Sandberg

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEngineeringComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents details of the design and implementation of the Niakhar Social Networks and Health Project (NSNHP), a large, mixed-methods project funded by the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). By redressing fundamental problems in conventional survey network data collection methods, the project is aimed at improving inferences concerning the association between social network structures and processes and health behaviors and outcomes. Fielded in collaboration with an ongoing demographic and health surveillance system in rural Senegal, the NSNHP includes qualitative data concerning the dimensions of social association and health ideologies and behaviors in the study zone, two panels of a new social network survey, and several supplementary and affiliated data sets. •Longitudinal social network survey linked to pre-existing surveillance data•Addresses fundamental methodological constraints in previous social network data•Enables social network analyses of health beliefs, behaviors, and outcomes.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.006

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207