MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115966445 · doi:10.5430/jha.v9n6p12

Health literacy: What we know and don’t know - A literature perspective

2020· article· en· W3115966445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim D., O'Connor Stephen J, Williams J.H., William Opoku-Agyeman, Chu D.I., Seung W. Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyLiteracyPerspective (graphical)Affect (linguistics)Health careMedicineDiseaseNeed to knowPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceComputer sciencePedagogyCommunicationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health literacy has become an important topic to discuss in the US healthcare system. Almost nine out of ten adults in the United States lack the knowledge and skills required to manage their health and prevent disease. While studies have shown the importance of health literacy, not may have explored its’ history and conceptual roots. Hence, the purpose of this study is to address the gap in the literature by reviewing studies related to the past, present, and the effect of health literacy. The results have shown that inadequate health literacy does affect patients’ general health and performance of the US healthcare system.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207