MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106060093 · doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000259

Recruitment and Retention for the Evaluation of a Healthy Food Initiative in Economically Disadvantaged, Majority African American Communities

2020· article· en· W3106060093 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsAttritionDisadvantagedOutreachAfrican americanGerontologyRetention ManagementMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyMedical educationEnvironmental healthSociologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective recruitment and retention supports equitable participation in research. The aim of this article is to describe recruitment and retention methods among residents of highly disadvantaged, predominantly African American communities in the southeastern United States during the evaluation of a healthy food access initiative. We proposed that active and passive recruitment methods, intensive retention strategies, community outreach and involvement, over-enrollment to anticipate attrition, and applied principles of community participation would achieve the study's recruitment and retention goals. The enrollment goal of 560 was met at 94% (n = 527), and the retention goal of 400 was achieved (n = 408).

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.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.869
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.253 · 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