‘I can choose’: the reflected prominence of personal control in representations of health risk in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary research has contributed to a better understanding of the personal and societal correlates of risk perception. However, representations of ‘health risk’ remain to be characterised more fully. Drawing on a Canadian study conducted in 2004, an analysis was conducted to develop better characterisations of individual representations of health risk. The study involved a national telephone survey (N = 1503) and face-to-face semi-structured interviews with individuals across Canada (N = 73) in which participants’ representations of health, risk and health risk were elicited using a word association technique. In the telephone survey, it was found that representations of health risk were most frequently negative, with many participants referring to disease and illness. The concept of health risk was also associated with lifestyle, individual control and personal agency, suggesting that individual health behaviour and personal responsibility for health were prominent features of public discourse on health risk in Canada. However, subtle variations in representations of health risk were observed in analyses of semi-structured interviews, pointing to important differences according to age and gender in this specific discourse. There was agreement among participants that health risks were associated with individual vulnerability and menace to life or health, and that such vulnerability increased with age. However, women were less likely to focus on the idea of actively making choices to control health risks and less frequently made references to the positive aspects of health risks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".