A scoping review of definitions and frameworks of intersectoral action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intersectoral action is rooted in all health promotion activities because the determinants of health lie outside of the health sector. Despite the increasing use of these terms (intersectoral action, intersectoral action for health, intersectoral collaboration), often interchangeably, we noted a lack of consensus on their definitions and conceptualizations. The objective of this paper is to report the results of a scoping review of the use of definitions for a set of related terms as well as for conceptual frameworks, including the discussion of the evolution of those definitions and the sectors that use them. Finally, we propose a single definition for each term. We conducted a systematic search for documents published between January, 1960 and March, 2011 in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese. We retrieved 11 to 15 definitions per main term. Using a content analysis approach, an integrative conceptual definition was proposed for four main terms. Furthermore, in reviewing frameworks for potential use, we noted the lack of a comprehensive framework for intersectoral processes.
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 | 0.053 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.060 | 0.073 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".