MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6904720668 · doi:10.14288/1.0413750

Smart Discharges Uganda Caregiver Counselling Video Series - Lusoga Version

2022· dataset· en· W6904720668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Health careHealth interventionDigital healthProgram evaluationPublic healthCommunity health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective(s): Smart Discharges is a digital health program that uses individual-level risk prediction and intervention to increase effective health seeking behavior, improve health outcomes, and reduce mortality during the post-discharge period. Health workers aim to mitigate risk by educating caregivers on post-discharge care practices and by scheduling follow-up visits for at-risk children in their communities. Data Description: This dataset features a 7-part caregiver counselling video series tailored to the Ugandan context. It includes an introductory video and seven videos focusing on essential post-discharge care practices: 1) Hygiene 2) Nutrition 3) Breastfeeding 4) Care Seeking 5) Mosquito Net Use 6) Medications 7) Immunizations Videos are available in English and local Ugandan languages of Acholi, Luganda, Lusoga, and Runyankole. This dataset contains the Lusoga version. Limitations: Videos were designed for the Ugandan context and may not be generalizable to other settings. Abbreviations: Village Health Teams (VHT) (i.e. local term for Community Health Worker (CHW)) Ethics Declaration: NA Funding Source(s): BC Children's Hospital Foundation; Grand Challenges Canada; Mining4Life; Thrasher Research Fund;

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1330.066

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→French-language works237,207→