Bridging the gap between knowledge and action on the societal determinants of cardiovascular disease: how one Canadian community effort hit – and hurdled – the lifestyle wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An expanding conceptual and research literature identifies cardiovascular disease (CVD) as the disease whose incidence varies most, according to income level. To date however, there has been virtually no public consideration in Canada of the role that societal factors play in its incidence. In an attempt to redress this gap, a community coalition brought together the latest research on the societal determinants of CVD. Barriers to public awareness and public policy action to address these societal determinants of health included the unwillingness of health care associations to consider societal determinants of health as relevant to their activities; general resistance by the media; and active attempts by governments of the day to shift focus away from societal determinants of health. Considering these barriers, university personnel involvement appears essential to any attempt to identify and address the societal determinants of CVD and other diseases.
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 | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".