MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044010803 · doi:10.1177/152483990200300309

Integration of the Ecological Approach in Tobacco Programs for Youth: A Survey of Canadian Public Health Organizations

2002· article· en· W2044010803 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucie Richard, Louise Potvin, Jean‐Louis Denis, Natalie Kishchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthIntervention (counseling)Social ecological modelInterpersonal communicationTobacco controlHealth promotionProgram evaluationPublic relationsEnvironmental healthPsychologyPolitical scienceEcologyNursingMedicinePublic administrationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the level of integration of the ecological approach in Canadian public health organizations’ tobacco control programs for youth. The study used a model that identified intervention settings, targets, and strategies as key dimensions of an ecological approach to programs. An inventory of the tobacco youth programs implemented by regional public health organizations identified 148 organizations conducting such programs, 129 of which agreed to participate. Program descriptions were obtained through telephone interviews. The mean number of settings in which programs were implemented was 3 (SD = 1.3), with schools and communities being the most often-used settings. The mean number of different intervention strategies was 3.6 (SD = 1.7). Most frequently, programs directly targeted youths themselves, followed by interpersonal and organizational environment. Overall, the level of integration of the ecological approach was deemed high. Canadian public health organizations’ tobacco control programs aimed at youth are evolving toward a more comprehensive agenda.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.493
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.031 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207