MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391903415 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.358

Introduction to the Minitrack on Monitoring, Control, and Protection

2023· article· en· W4391903415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetInternet privacyBusinessWearable computerHealth careControl (management)Patient portalTest (biology)Computer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about e-health applications use by elderly in relation to social and system level determinants. We conducted a national survey of 2000 seniors in Canada assessing their use of technology and e-health applications, social determinants and interaction with the health care (HC) system. The findings demonstrate technological readiness (85% owned computers, 74% used Internet daily/weekly, 90% used e-mail), which does not translate into e-health applications use. Internet use to connect with a HC professional, access test results or patient portal, or medical appointment booking was very limited. The use of wearables, telemonitoring, and fall detection technology was also very low (11.9%, 9.4%, 4.2%, respectively). A digital divide exists among seniors that is underscored by significant associations between e-health applications use and social determinants. Private insurance and willingness to pay for quicker access are related to higher frequency of mApps and Internet use for accessing health information and exchanging with HC providers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.035

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207