MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086156293 · doi:10.1080/19371918.2014.893856

An Evaluation of the Public Health Paradigm: A View of Social Work

2014· article· en· W2086156293 on OpenAlexaff
Rachelle Ashcroft

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Public Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthSociologyParadigm shiftSocial justicePublic relationsEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article engages in a critical review of the public health paradigm to determine the compatibility with social work's guiding value of social justice. This critical examination explores the history, epistemology, and view of health underlying the public health paradigm. Implications of the public health paradigm's view of health on social work practice and discourse is examined.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0200.156
Scholarly communication0.0270.028
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0160.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Public HealthSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207