MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040573855 · doi:10.5539/res.v4n4p8

A Review of Canadian Policy on Social Determinants of Health

2012· review· en· W2040573855 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shweta Pathak, M. David Low, Luisa Franzini, J. Michael Swint

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial determinants of healthGovernment (linguistics)Health policyEconomic growthSocial policyHealth careOrder (exchange)Political sciencePublic economicsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an assessment of the social and fiscal policies related to social determinants of health at the federal level in Canada. An extensive review of grey literature was carried out to obtain information about policies and programs that address socio-economic factors influencing population health. Publications and reports on government websites such as Service Canada and non-government organizations such as UNICEF were examined in order to evaluate current socio-economic policies related to social determinants of health in Canada. The study found that Canada has generated a substantial body of research in the area of social determinants of health. Several policies and some programs directed towards social determinants such as income distribution, childhood care and development, education, employment and housing, have been implemented in Canada on the national level. Canada has made major progress in some areas of social determinants of health related policy-formulation and implementation, but it is deficient in several others. There is a need to galvanize efforts across all levels of governance to address the gaps between research and policy development related to social determinants of health at a system-wide level in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.032
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.418
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207