MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sharing a Vision of Hope for Diabetes Care and Prevention Among American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

2003· article· en· W2055604580 on OpenAlexaff
JoAnne Pegler, Lemyra DeBruyn, Nilka Rı́os Burrows, Elizabeth Gilbert, Janice L. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic relationsPublic healthHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Diabetes Prevention Center (NDPC) is an emerging model for public health practice and partnership. It is rooted in a "promising practices" framework, one that looks at what works for community diabetes prevention, care, and treatment practices. Working with national and local partners to explore new approaches to diabetes prevention invites us to move beyond traditional models of community public health partnerships. Traditional community partnership models emphasized the technical assistance in research, surveillance, and program development that can be provided by partners from outside the community. While not diminishing the importance of these activities, the NDPC seeks to provide an environment for meaningful language and discourse that adequately honors the innovative and culturally rich approaches to diabetes prevention already being developed within many American Indian and Alaska Native communities, which have some of the highest rates of diabetes in the world. The NDPC strives to provide common ground for the emergent discussions around the power and practice of solid evaluation frameworks, new information technologies, capacity-building philosophies, health systems, and collaborative approaches.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207