Authors’ Response to Peer Reviews of “Satisfaction With Health Care Services at the Pediatric Specialist Clinic of the National Referral Center in Malaysia: Cross-sectional Study of Caregivers’ Perspectives”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
include data/numbers in the Results section rather than general summary statements Response: Amendment done with relevant data/numbers 2. Introduction: include any a priori hypotheses 3. Introduction: to support the rationale for the review, the authors should include additional recent promising evidence that supports the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of digital health interventions in different chronic medical conditions to provide context for the applicability of lessons learned in the study across other fields [3][4][5][6][7][8].Response: The sample articles provided focus on the use of mobile health (mHealth)/digital health/technology/telemedicine, whereas this paper is on caregiver satisfaction by simply using the SERVQUAL questionnaire.
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 | 0.032 | 0.359 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.023 |
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".