Making Health Promotion Evidenced-Informed
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 large urban health unit identified a need for explicit, strategic, long-term organizational priority toward practical application of evidence in health promotion practice. Becoming a Best Practice Spotlight Organization (BPSO®) candidate provided an opportunity to systematically implement this commitment. The primary goals were to support incorporation of evidence-informed practice throughout the organization, increase interprofessional collaboration, and provide opportunities for knowledge exchange for staff. A mixed-methods evaluation consisting of three phases, including an analysis of previous evaluations, a survey of Champions, and an online focus group with the Steering Committee, demonstrated very positive outcomes. Staff reported increased incorporation of evidence in practice and program delivery. Collaboration and consultation amongst interdisciplinary staff across program areas also increased and staff responded very positively to increased opportunities for knowledge exchange. BPSO® candidacy opportunities should be used by health organizations to increase evidence-informed practice and inspire excellence in health promotion practice.
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 | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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