An epistemic community comes and goes? Local and national expressions of heart health promotion in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to examine the existence and shape of epistemic communities for (heart) health promotion at the international, national, provincial and regional levels in Canada. Epistemic community may be defined as a network of experts with an authoritative claim to policy relevant knowledge in their area of expertise. METHODS: An interpretive policy analysis was employed using 60 documents (48 provincial, 8 national and 4 international) and 66 interviews (from 5 Canadian provinces). These data were entered into NUD*IST, a qualitative software analysis package, to assist in the development of codes and themes. These codes form the basis of the results. RESULTS: A scientific and policy epistemic community was identified at the international and Canadian federal levels. Provincially and regionally, the community is present as an idea but its implementation varies between jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: The importance of economic, political and cultural factors shapes the presence and shape of the epistemic community in different jurisdictions. The community waxes and wanes but appears robust.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".