Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to describe and assess the process undertaken by Capital Health responsible for planning and developing a new primary care centre in an older urban, and demographically mixed neighbourhood in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The approach to the paper is to describe how health centres, if they are to be fully effective in terms of meeting community needs, need more than technical excellence; they also need to fit into the community where they are to be located. Primary care centres, through helping people stay healthy and manage their own health in their own communities, can be an essential antidote to the challenges presented by an aging population. The paper uses the Capital Health initiative as a means of demonstrating how a primary care centre can achieve this objective, in terms of design and physical location, as well as planning process. FINDINGS: The paper describes the process the project planners have developed to enter into dialogue with representatives of the community. The proposed site selected for the clinic was met with some resistance because it was formerly a school built in the 1930s in the middle of a large area of green space and surrounded by mature elms in the midst of a mixed urban residential area. Through an intense two-way communication process with residents of the area, the plans for the centre are iterative, evolving in such a way that the clinic will not only integrate architecturally and structurally, but better meet the needs of the community it serves. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The paper has practical implications for anyone interested in designing and locating new health centres in already existing urban communities. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Discusses the issues of building a new primary care centre, while preserving precious green space and considering opinions of local residents.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".