MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041233617 · doi:10.1177/152483990100200109

Linking Science and Practice: Toward a System for Enabling Communities to Adopt Best Practices for Chronic Disease Prevention

2001· article· en· W2041233617 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term CareCanadian Heart Research CentreUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceProcess (computing)Psychological interventionPromotion (chess)Health promotionKey (lock)Protocol (science)Medical educationKnowledge managementDisease preventionMedicineProcess managementPublic relationsPsychologyComputer scienceNursingBusinessAlternative medicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the development of a system for collecting and assessing best community-based health promotion practices for dissemination is described. The key system components are (a) a protocol for identifying meritorious practices, (b) criteria for assessing those practices, and (c) an assessment procedure. A key informant process was used to identify interventions, and interviews were conducted to acquire detailed information on them. Categories of criteria pertaining to (a) effectiveness, (b) plausibility, and (c) practicality were developed for assessing practices. Application of the criteria led to selected practices’ being designated as “best,” “promising,” or “to be tracked.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.777
GPT teacher head0.707
Teacher spread0.070 · 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