MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Whole blood and apheresis donors in Quebec, Canada: Demographic differences and motivations to donate

2015· article· en· W789996379 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion and Apheresis Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApheresisDonationBlood donorDemographicsMedicineContext (archaeology)Family medicineDemographyInternal medicinePlateletImmunologyGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to compare demographics and donation motivations among plasma/platelet donors (PPDs) and whole blood donors (WBDs), in a voluntary and non-remunerated context. Motives to donate blood and demographic characteristics were collected through questionnaires completed by 795 WBDs and 473 PPDs. Comparison of WBDs and PPDs under chi-square tests showed that 17 out of 23 motivators were statistically different according to various demographic variables. These results demonstrate the existence of specific donor profiles both for WBDs and PPDs. Agencies should develop new recruitment strategies tailored to these donors, especially if they wish to convince WBDs to convert to apheresis donation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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