Identifying and Strengthening the Structural Roots of Urban Health in Canada: Participatory Policy Research and the Urban Health Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An urban health research agenda for health promoters is presented. In Canada, urban issues are emerging as a major concern of policy makers. The voices raising these issues are from the non-health sectors, but many of these issues such as increasing income inequality and poverty, homelessness and housing insecurity, and social exclusion of youth, immigrants, and ethno-racial minorities have strong health implications as they are important social determinants of health. Emphasis on these and other social determinants of health and the policy decisions that strengthen or weaken them is timely as the quality of Canadian urban environments has become especially problematic. We argue for a participatory urban health research and action agenda with four components: (a) an emphasis on health promotion and the social determinants of health; (b) community-based participatory research; and (c) drawing on the lived experience of people to influence (d) policy analysis and policy change. Urban health researchers and promoters are urged to draw upon new developments in population health and community-based health promotion theory and research to identify and strengthen the roots of urban health through citizen action on public policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".