Baseline assessment of organizational capacity for health promotion within regional health authorities in Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a baseline profile of organizational capacity for (heart) health promotion in Alberta's regional health authorities (RHAs); and examines differences in perceived organizational health promotion capacity specific to modifiable risk factors across three levels of staff and across capacity levels. Baseline data were collected from a purposive sample of 144 board members, senior/middle managers and service providers from 17 RHAs participating in a five-year time-series repeated survey design assessing RHA capacity for (heart) health promotion. Results indicate low levels of capacity to take health promotion action on the broader determinants of health and risk conditions like poverty and social support. In contrast, capacity for health promotion action specific to physiological and behavioural risk factors is considerably higher. Organizational "will" to do health promotion is noticeably more present than is both infrastructure and leadership. Both position held within an organization as well as overall level of organizational capacity appear to influence perceptions of organizational capacity. Overall, results suggest that organizational "will", while necessary, is inadequate on its own for health promotion implementation to occur, especially in regard to addressing the broader determinants of health. A combination of low infrastructure and limited leadership may help explain a lack of health promotion action.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it