MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993027454 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.167353

Translating Research Evidence Into Practice to Reduce Health Disparities: A Social Determinants Approach

2010· article· en· W1993027454 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Howard K. Koh, Sarah Oppenheimer, Sarah B. Massin-Short, Karen M. Emmons, Alan C. Geller, Kasisomayajula Viswanath

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Cancer InstitutePublic Health Agency of CanadaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsSocial determinants of healthHealth equityPublic healthGlobal healthFraming (construction)Scope (computer science)Public relationsHealth policyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthEconomic growthMedicineNursingGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translating research evidence to reduce health disparities has emerged as a global priority. The 2008 World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health recently urged that gaps in health attributable to political, social, and economic factors should be closed in a generation. Achieving this goal requires a social determinants approach to create public health systems that translate efficacy documented by research into effectiveness in the community. We review the scope, definitions, and framing of health disparities and explore local, national, and global programs that address specific health disparities. Such efforts translate research evidence into real-world settings and harness collaborative social action for broad-scale, sustainable change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.278
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2780.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0290.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0080.022
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.569
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.062 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations192
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207