Bridging the distance between lifestyle and determinants of health approaches: The Circle of Health as a synthesis tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rhetoric of crisis in the Canadian Health Care System has created an environment in which the central tenants of health promotion are divided into opposing camps of individual lifestyle practices versus a systems approach to health. A number of frameworks have attempted to bridge together the many components of health promotion theory, but in their design they have continued to reflect the divide between lifestyle and determinants of health perspectives. However, an innovative, collaborative, community-based workshop process has resulted in the development of a framework, called the Circle of Health, that successfully synthesises core elements of both perspectives on theory and practice. This paper situates the development of the Circle of Health in Canada's current healthcare environment and in Canada's dynamic history with health promotion theory and praxis. The authors describe the development and validation of the Circle of Health. The authors conclude with the proposition that the Circle of Health has the potential to serve as a culturally appropriate tool for bridging the distance between lifestyle and systems approaches to emerging healthcare challenges in Canada and internationally.
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 | 0.059 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".