MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003603519 · doi:10.2105/ajph.93.3.392

Population Health in Canada: A Brief Critique

2003· article· en· W2003603519 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Coburn, Keith Denny, Eric Mykhalovskiy, Peggy McDonough, Ann Robertson, Rhonda Love

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation healthPerspective (graphical)Agency (philosophy)Social determinants of healthHealth policyPopulationHealth careHealth equityPower (physics)Public healthSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial scienceLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An internationally influential model of population health was developed in Canada in the 1990s, shifting the research agenda beyond health care to the social and economic determinants of health. While agreeing that health has important social determinants, the authors believe that this model has serious shortcomings; they critique the model by focusing on its hidden assumptions. Assumptions about how knowledge is produced and an implicit interest group perspective exclude the sociopolitical and class contexts that shape interest group power and citizen health. Overly rationalist assumptions about change understate the role of agency. The authors review the policy and practice implications of the Canadian population health model and point to alternative ways of viewing the determinants of health.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0150.030
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0140.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations83
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207