MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3096386403 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v12n13p67

Knowledge and Awareness of Saudi Public Regarding the Outbreak and Prevention of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia; a Questionnaire-Based Study

2020· article· en· W3096386403 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reem Al Madani, Shahzeb Ansari

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicComputer-assisted web interviewingPublic healthOutbreakFamily medicineCross-sectional studyPsychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakQuestionnaireMedicineMedical educationNursingSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The dispersion of severe COVID-19 has already occupied on pandemic extents, disturbing over 100 nations in a matter of months. A worldwide response to formulate health systems global is imperious. MATERIALS & METHODS: This is a cross sectional study conducted among the Saudi general public using an online survey. Saudis (male and female) of all ages willing to participate in this study were requested to fill up the survey. An online questionnaire was designed using Google Forms with questions related to personal and demographic information followed by COVID-10 related questions. RESULTS: A total of N=1026 subjects participated in this study and responded by completing the online survey. They were divided into groups including gender, age, education and profession type. As far as gender was concerned, 243 (23.7%) males and 783 (76.3%) females took part. CONCLUSION: Overall knowledge of Saudis regarding COVID-19 is above average.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→