Re‐conceptualizing health and learning in terms of community resilience and enterprise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Many Canadians presume their universal health care system provides equitable opportunity and access to health, yet this is not necessarily the case, especially for marginalized populations. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize how marginalized, yet resilient, communities are able to build capacity and contribute to their own learning about health. Design/methodology/approach Environmental scan, state of the field review and community consultations on a national scale. Findings For adults living in rural and remote areas that fall below health norms, health knowledge and care is often not enough to build capacity and support resilient communities. More learning needs to be done by all members of community and government. Practical implications Consultations with selected members of marginalized populations and their service providers reveal a cross‐community, cross‐sector and cross‐government focus on addressing the social determinants of health is needed to increase individual capacity. Originality/value Consultations with community members and their service providers reveal rich information about the state of health and learning in selected areas across Canada. Using literature on health and learning as a framework, this paper discusses challenges and promising practices in terms of participants' abilities to sustain their own and their communities' health and learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".