MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104350795 · doi:10.1177/1049732310370213

Youth’s Perspectives on the Determinants of Health

2010· article· en· W2104350795 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roberta L. Woodgate, Jennifer Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsPhotovoiceEthnographyContext (archaeology)Public healthEthnic groupSociologySociocultural evolutionPsychologyGender studiesGerontologyMedicineNursingGeographyAnthropologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we discuss findings of an ethnographic exploring how Canadian youth frame health within the context of their life situations. Seventy-one youth (12 to 19 years of age) from diverse ethnic backgrounds and residing in a major city in western Canada took part in the study.We used traditional ethnographic methods of interviewing and fieldwork, as well as photovoice. Sociocultural themes emerging from the study indicate that even though youth have a broad understanding of health that includes acknowledging the many different types of health beyond physical health, lifestyle factors such as healthy eating and exercise nonetheless dominate the talk of health by youth. The results highlight that the concept of health normalized by academics and public policy experts-as being inclusive of the broader determinants of health-might not be congruent with how youth regard health.

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)0.003
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 score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.965
GPT teacher head0.837
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Citations68
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207