MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295094359 · doi:10.2196/41096

Digital Health for Vulnerable Populations: From Co-design to Scaling and Replication

2022· article· en· W4295094359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gale Berkowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory designDesign technologyProcess (computing)TelehealthDigital healthKnowledge managementComputer scienceProcess managementHealth careBusinessTelemedicineEngineeringPolitical scienceOperations managementParallels

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that technology access, digital literacy, and telehealth access have become more crucial than ever before. At the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) at the University of California, 2 projects are focused on communities have the least access to quality health care services, including low-income workers in rural areas as well as low-income older adults in their community. Objective Co-designed technology innovation is a core competency of CITRIS Health. This presentation will focus on 2 of CITRIS Health’s co-designed signature programs: ACTIVATE and Lighthouse. Co-designed innovations have the intended outcomes of improving access to technology, increasing technology literacy, and ultimately improving health outcomes. Methods Co-design refers to a participatory approach to designing solutions, in which community members are treated as equal collaborators in the design process—they give feedback, and they try out devices. It is part of an innovation process. Key components of a co-design process involve the following: intentionally involving users in designing solutions, postponing design decisions until after gathering feedback, synthesizing feedback from participants into insights, and developing solutions based on feedback. Results Both projects have undergone formal evaluations to assess the process of implementation as well as outcomes. Additionally, each project has a systematic process for monitoring its own implementation and key metrics. Common near-term outcomes include positive feedback from co-designers about the inclusivity of the design progress and optimism that technology selections, training, and interventions will lead to the intended outcomes. Conclusions Ultimately, the intention of these co-designed innovations is to create models that are feasible and sustainable. They will provide a roadmap for both public and private partners, setting a gold standard in California and across the nation.

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)0.302
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.378
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3020.378
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207