How People Use Web-Based Parenting Information to Support Others in Their Social Circle: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Almost two-thirds of the North American population have searched for health information on the web, and the majority report searching on behalf of someone else in their social circle, a phenomenon referred to as proxy seeking. Little is known about how proxy seekers use web-based health information and the outcomes they experience. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to explore why proxy seekers used a parenting website on behalf of parents in their social circle and the outcomes they reported. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in the context of a partnership with a web-based parenting resource to explore the contexts and motivations for proxy web-based health information seeking, use of information, and subsequent outcomes. A total of 14 participants who self-identified as family members, friends of parents of young children, or professionals who worked with young children were interviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The following 4 reasons for proxy seeking were uncovered: for reassurance, out of personal curiosity, as part of a professional role, or following an explicit request from the parents. Information was used to provide informational support for parents or material support for a child. Positive outcomes of using the information and some of the resulting interpersonal tensions were described. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an in-depth look at proxy seeking behavior and outcomes among users of a web-based parenting resource.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".