MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101084355 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2014-084

The Political Economy of Health: A Research Agenda for Addressing Health Inequalities in Canada

2015· article· en· W2101084355 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dennis Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthHealth policyPolitical scienceInequalityPoliticsSocial determinants of healthPublic administrationPublic policyWelfare stateInternational healthPopulation healthPublic sectorEconomic growthHealth careEconomicsLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public policy creates health inequalities among Canadians by inequitably distributing the social determinants of health (SDOH). Political decisions by authorities bring about these public policies, yet to date there has been little resistance to these decisions by the Canadian public. This article proposes a research agenda for investigating why this might be the case by considering a) Canada’s identification as a liberal welfare state; b) the relative power and influence of the corporate and business sector, labour, and civil society in shaping SDOH-related public policy-making; c) how population health researchers and public health practitioners understand health inequalities and their role in reducing them; and d) the public’s understanding of SDOH and public policy-making.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0260.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.666
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.116 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207