Exploring the role of medical and consumer literature in the diffusion of information related to hormone therapy for menopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using content analysis, this study explored the role of the literature in the diffusion of new information; the influence of the literature on the innovation‐decision process; and how the concept of tie strength can contribute to a greater understanding of the role of the literature in information transmission. Diffusion of innovations and strength of weak ties theories provided the framework that informed this research, and an illustrated medical case study, changing practices related to hormone therapy for menopausal women, provided context for the study. Findings suggest that published literature impacts the innovation‐decision process and thus plays an integral role in the diffusion of medical innovation to physicians and consumers; that the view of literature as a bridging “weak tie” in a multifactor communication network allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the role of published literature in information diffusion; and that medical and lay articles are not neutral channels, they function to provide information, reinforce knowledge, and produce and shape meaning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".