MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200031357 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.1909

CATCH-ON Educational Interventions for Providers, Older Adults, and Caregivers

2021· article· en· W4200031357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin E. Emery‐Tiburcio, Michelle Newman, Robyn Golden

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Psychological interventionQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical educationAging in placeHealth carePsychologyCommunity collegeGerontologyNursingMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract CATCH-ON, the collaborative GWEP led by Rush University Medical Center, is working to create Age-Friendly Communities by assuring that health systems, community-based organizations, and older adults and families are educated about the 4Ms. For providers, CATCH-ON offers a monthly Learning Community that focuses on one of the 4Ms each quarter. Each session provides practical recommendations for 4Ms implementation and opportunities to share experiences in small groups. CATCH-ON also partnered with Community Catalyst, older adults, and caregivers to develop a 4Ms educational brochure. The brochure is available electronically and by paper to educate older adults and caregivers about the 4Ms and discussing them with their healthcare team. Additionally, CATCH-ON created 4M online modules for older adults and families. This session will explore the success and lessons learned in developing educational interventions for diverse audiences and how this approach strengthens Age-Friendly Communities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicAging and Gerontology Research→French-language works237,207→