MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984750423

The Relationship between the Use of Social Networks and the Health Literacy of Ilam Public Library Users in 2018

2019· article· en· W2984750423 on OpenAlexaff
Saleh Rahimi, Marzieh Fattahi

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyLiteracyPublic healthComputer scienceData scienceGeographySociologyLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineEconomic growthHealth careNursingEconomicsPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Due to the impact of health literacy on how people decide about their health, such literacy is considered as one of the important issues in improving community health. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the use of social networks and the health literacy of Ilam public library users. Materials and Methods: The present study is a practical research conducted based on descriptive-survey method in 2018. Sample size was selected by stratified random sampling. Besides, a three-part questionnaire was applied for data collection. Moreover, SPSS software was used for data analysis: Aanalysis of the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficient. Results: According to the average scores, public library users have had good results in health literacy components, with the aim of understanding, assessment, reading, decision making, and access to health information. Also, there was a significant relationship between the use of social networks and userschr('39') health literacy; in other words, if there was an increase in the use of social networks, health literacy level would increase. Conclusion: Since social networks have been instrumental in enhancing the health literacy of public library users as a source of health and sanitary information, appropriate social networking can be provided to share experiences and increase the level of userschr('39') health literacy by taking into account the security of userschr('39') information and the accuracy of the given information, thereby providing new opportunities and conditions for users, doctors, patients, and planners of this domain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.570
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.035 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicSocial Media in Health Education→French-language works237,207→