MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096844649

Awaking municipalities for health promotion: A case study in rural communities

2013· article· en· W2096844649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pilar Monreal‐Bosch, Arantza del Valle, Santiago Perera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPersonaWelfare economicsGeographyPhilosophyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desde la proclamacion oficial de la promocion de la salud como objetivo de las politicas de salud publica (Ottawa, 1986), la atencion se fue centrando cada vez mas en el desarrollo y potenciacion de los recursos de salud para la poblacion. Asi, se consideran “activos para la salud” cualquier factor o recurso que potencie la capacidad de los individuos, de las comunidades y poblaciones para mantener la salud y el bienestar. Este trabajo utiliza un diseno participativo centrado en el usuario entendiendolo como sujeto activo que nos ayuda a comprender la realidad dentro de su marco de referencia. El trabajo se realiza desde la comunidad y con la comunidad en un proceso participativo en comunidades rurales y con el objetivo de capacitar, fortalecer y empoderar a las comunidades en torno al concepto de salud (WHO, 2012). Se realizaron 3 grupos focales exploratorios y 14 entrevistas en profundidad. En los resultados se identifica como se define el concepto de salud por parte de los profesionales y de los usuarios y se conocen las practicas de las personas implicadas y su sentir en relacion a los activos de salud de su comunidad. Concluimos con el diseno de un plan de accion que contribuye a la promocion de la salud empoderando a su vez a la comunidad. Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Tabla normal; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Times New Roman; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Times New Roman; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207