MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of the Consumer Perspective Framework for Healthcare Applications

2014· book-chapter· en· W4250401033 on OpenAlexaff
Eh Eh Tin, Elizabeth Cummings, Elizabeth M. Borycki

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUploadHealth carePerspective (graphical)Computer scienceInternet privacyBusinessData scienceWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cummings, Borycki, and Roehrer (2013) developed a Consumer Perspectives Framework that identified a range of consumer-related issues and concerns that should be considered when downloading and using healthcare applications for mobile phones. The framework identifies data-related issues with mobile applications, such as ownership, location, completeness, corporate use, storage, and privacy. This chapter documents research undertaken in confirming the Consumer Perspectives Framework. Finally, the authors propose a method by which the Consumer Perspectives Framework can be implemented for use by consumers prior to downloading healthcare applications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book seriesSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207