MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399356094 · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1371142

Improving masked communication: the case for transparent masks

2024· article· en· W4399356094 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah D. McCrackin, Jelena Ristic

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Communication · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clear and compassionate communication is tantamount to quality of care and patient wellbeing. Yet, much of communication in healthcare occurs with lower faces visually hidden behind opaque face masks. Visual occlusion of the face by masks impairs both verbal and nonverbal communication, including recognition of basic emotions, perceptions of trustworthiness, emotional understanding, and empathic responding. This piece presents a brief overview of the new COVID-19 inspired literature which shows that visual face occlusion creates significant communication barriers which can be reduced by wearing transparent instead of opaque masks.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in CommunicationSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207