Planning Health-Promoting Development: Creation and Assessment of an Evidence-Based Index in the Region of Peel, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is mounting evidence of relationships between the built environment, health behaviours, and chronic disease. Collaborative intervention efforts aimed at improving sustainability and environmental planning are underway in many jurisdictions, but relatively few have focused on the rationale and evidence for health-promoting development. Given current rates of chronic diseases, such as diabetes, a collaborative effort between planning departments, public health professionals, and researchers was undertaken to create an evidence-based healthy development index aimed at encouraging health-promoting development in the municipality of the Region of Peel, ON, Canada. In this paper we present the review process used to establish prerequisite elements and measures in the index, and the spatial analytical methodology developed to assess these measures within existing neighbourhoods in our setting. The assessment process and results offer important insight into barriers in existing design standards, official plan policies, zoning by-laws, and technical requirements that limit health-promoting development and have hindered implementation of the index as a tool for planning policy. Our discussion highlights challenges that those seeking to undertake similar interventions in other rapidly developing suburban jurisdictions may encounter. Despite barriers to implementation of the index in the form originally intended, a variety of positive policy contributions have been made in municipal and provincial jurisdictions as a result of this work. Further study is needed to identify and address detailed barriers to policy implementation, and to document the longitudinal health impacts associated with this built environment intervention
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".