Authors’ Response to Peer Review of “Use of Mobile Forms in Low-Resource Areas for Population Health Surveys: Interview and Field Test Study”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the authors' response to the peer-review report for "Use of Mobile Forms in Low-Resource Areas for Population Health Surveys: Interview and Field Test Study." Major Concerns and FeedbackRationale of the approach: Reviewers [1] had some questions about the rationale behind the choice of the approach.Was there an initial hypothesis that was tested?If so, can the authors explain the rationale in more detail?Response: The paper [2] was modified so that this was discussed in more detail in the Introduction section. General clarity:The language used was straightforward, with simple and short sentences, so was generally very easy to follow.However, several reviewers found the manuscript very descriptive and lacking critical analysis/reflection (more on this later in the review).Furthermore, some parts of the article could benefit from restructuring the text (moving text to different sections).For example, it is recommended that the authors consider moving the findings described in the Methodology section to the Results section.Authors may also consider streamlining the manuscript to ensure the same result is not repeated multiple times in the same section, which can be confusing for the reader.Response: The paper was modified so that major sections of the paper were restructured to adhere to JMIR Publications guidelines.Methodology findings were also moved to the Results section.We also streamlined the manuscript to ensure that we didn't repeat anything that was mentioned before.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.361 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.046 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".