MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386922014 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011285

Fourteen quick tips for crowdsourcing geographically linked data for public health advocacy

2023· article· en· W4386922014 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Atienza, Anjalee Benedict, Lincoln Stein, Kashif Pirzada, Cheryl White, Shraddha Pai

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingOutreachCitizen scienceCrowd sourcingTeam buildingData sciencePublic healthSocial mediaBusinessWorld Wide WebPublic relationsComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringPolitical scienceEngineering managementBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents 14 quick tips to build a team to crowdsource data for public health advocacy. It includes tips around team building and logistics, infrastructure setup, media and industry outreach, and project wrap-up and archival for posterity.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.056

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207