Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canada provides an excellent example of how political and economic forces can trump the best intentions of health researchers and workers attempting to promote health equity. While Canadian contributions to concepts of health equity have been so extensive as to provide Canada with a reputation as a 'health promotion powerhouse,' in reality, Canadian action on improving health equity by addressing the social determinants of health has been profoundly lacking. Health inequities in Canada are widespread and manifest in numerous indicators of health such as life expectancy, infant mortality, disease incidence and mortality, and injuries at every stage of the life course. In addition, Canadian public policy has served to weaken the quality of the social determinants of health to which Canadians are exposed, bidding poorly for the future. In this article I present the reasons why this may be the case and the means for reversing these trends. Introduction Canada provides an excellent example of how political and economic forces can trump the best intentions of health researchers and workers attempting to promote health equity. It has been noted that the contributions of Canadians to the concepts of health promotion1 and population health2 have been so extensive as to provide Canada with a reputation as a 'health promotion powerhouse' (Raphael 2008b). The number of Canadian governmental and public health association policy statements, reports, and documents detailing the importance of promoting health equity is remarkable. In Canada, discussion and report writing on these issues continues at a hectic pace (CPHA 2009; Butler-Jones 2008; Canadian Senate Subcommittee on Population Health 2009; PHAC 2007). Part and parcel of these health promotion and population health concepts is the importance of reducing health inequities. Reducing health inequities requires action on the primary influences upon health, that is, the living circumstances to which individuals are exposed (Raphael 2008d). In the health field, these circumstances have come to be called the social determinants of health and include income and its distribution, early child development, education, employment security and working conditions, food and housing, health care, and social exclusion, among others. Promoting health equity requires improving the quality of the social determinants of health to which individuals are exposed and making the distribution of these social determinants of health more equitable. The key to improving health equity therefore is reducing social inequities.3 The quality of these social determinants is itself shaped by public policies implemented by governments. As one illustration of the impact of public policy, wealthy developed nations differ profoundly in their commitments to providing citizens with sufficient income to attain health. In the Scandinavian nations the distribution of income through wages and benefits is such that family poverty has been virtually eliminated (Innocenti Research Centre 2007). This is much less so in developed nations that are English speaking. A similar situation is seen for the promotion of early child development through the universal provision of free or low cost high quality childcare. The Scandinavian nations provide such care; the English-speaking nations do not (Innocenti Research Centre 2008). In reality, Canadian action on improving health equity by addressing the social determinants of health has been profoundly lacking. It has been noted by the Canadian Senate's Subcommittee on Population Health, the authoritative Canadian Population Health Initiative, and the business oriented Conference Board of Canada, among others, that Canada lags well behind other wealthy developed nations in addressing the social determinants of health (Raphael 2010). This is also the conclusion of numerous academic researchers who have examined the current state of Canadian health-related public policy activity. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,042 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».