MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403479579 · doi:10.62920/thwdjd12

Résultats d’un pré-test visant à évaluer l’efficacité d’une communication administrative gouvernementale (note de recherche)

2024· article· en· W4403479579 on OpenAlexaff
Andréanne Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueFacteurs humains : · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research note presents partial results of a user test assessing the “communicative effectiveness” (Clerc & Beaudet, 2008) of a written communication aimed at citizens penalized for driving under the influence. The doctoral candidate is interested in the users interaction with an informational ecosystem composed of multiple sources of information. She compares the effectiveness of three ecosystems by checking their effects on users' comprehension, appreciation, and mental workload. These objectives require expanding the usual scope of the “communicative effectiveness” concept and exploring aspects related to reading/using multiple texts in an administrative context. The tests were conducted with 15 French-speaking adults without a high school diploma. An adapted version of the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Hart & Staveland, 1988) was used to measure mental workload. The data suggest that when faced with a letter of a high informational density, users with low literacy levels focus their attention on peripheral details at the expense of the main ideas. No correlation was observed between comprehension and mental workload. The data are now considered a "pre-test" used to refine the research design for a second wave of interviews.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.184 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFacteurs humains :Same topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207