Functional size measurement of postnatal care apps: Morocco case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study empirically evaluates the functionality coverage of 18 mobile applications (apps) for Postnatal care including a recently developed app in Morocco “Mamma&Baby”. This evaluation is based on a comparison of the COSMIC _ISO 19,761 functional size of these apps with the score obtained in a previous evaluation based on functions extraction through a quality assessment questionnaire. This comparison allows to discuss the relationship between the functional size of the 18 apps, their users’ ratings in the Play Store as well as the number of downloads. While for most of the assessed apps, there is only a small shift between the rankings of the two evaluations, for some apps, the shift is huge due to the number of features added and not covered by the score previously obtained. This study illustrates the use of COSMIC as an effective method for corrective or evolutionary updates since it takes into account all the functions and features of postnatal apps. For the “Mamma&Baby” app, efforts are required to boost the number of downloads, optimize its visibility, and attract the highest number of users.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".