EMPIRICAL STUDY Forming ideas about health: A qualitative study of Ontario adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is a crucial period of child development during which one’s ideas about health are formed. However, little is known about the different contexts, experiences, and potential other factors that contribute to shaping the health ideas of adolescent populations, particularly when they are not seeking out the information for a particular purpose. In this Ontario-based qualitative study, grounded theory methods were used to explore ways that health knowledge is obtained in adolescents (age 1016). A purposeful, criterion-based sampling strategy was used, and data were collected through seven focus groups (n40). Findings indicate that while young people get their ideas about health through both didactic and organic learning contexts, the significant impact of organic learning is often overlooked. Categories of organic learning that emerged include self-reflective experience, the experience of close contacts, casually observing others, and common discourse. This study suggests that one central way that young people get their ideas about health is from living life: from the people they watch, the conversations that they have, and the experiences they live. Findings support the development of effective health promotion messages and also contribute to considering the place of some aspects of organic learning in the development of health-related resources that target adolescent populations.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".