Intersectoral collaboration theory as a framework to assist in developing a local government food and nutrition policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential role of local government in NSW to address public health nutrition issues has received encouraging reports. This treatise deals with the question of whether intersectoral collaboration theory is useful to assist development of a relationship with local government to develop food and nutrition policy. Intersectoral collaboration theory describes six conditions necessary for successful action: necessity, opportunity, capacity, relationships, planned action, and sustained outcomes. The project was a feasibility study carried out in a densely populated and multicultural local government area in Sydney's southwest during April 1998. Eight Council employees and one elected representative were interviewed using the semi-structured questionnaire to collect a range of opinions and knowledge about Council's involvement in a food and nutrition policy. Conceptual frameworks for the study included the Ottawa Charter and the food and nutrition system. Theoretical underpinning's were provided by intersectoral collaboration theory and organisational change theory. Using intersectoral collaboration theory, analysis of the interviews revealed that participants were very concerned with conditions of necessity, opportunity and capacity to develop food and nutrition policy. Intersectoral collaboration theory correctly predicted that the action proposed would have to assist Council to achieve their core business, gain social and political support and be possible within the current economic environment and level of other resources available. Participants were not able to identify how a food and nutrition policy would meet these conditions and be feasible within the current capacity of the organisation, and therefore did not become fully engaged in the feasibility study. The health sector needs to develop arguments for local government involvement from their perspective. Organisational change within the heath sector is required to develop capacity for intersectoral partnerships, as an effective strategy to address public health nutrition issues.
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 | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".