Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Health Promotion and Public Health: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this literature review is to identify how geographic information system (GIS) applications have been used in health-related research and to critically examine the issues, strengths, and challenges inherent to those approaches from the lenses of health promotion and public health. Through the review process, conducted in 2007, it is evident that health promotion and public health applications of GIS can be generally categorized into four predominant themes: disease surveillance (n = 227), risk analysis (n = 189), health access and planning (n = 138), and community health profiling (n = 115). This review explores how GIS approaches have been used to inform decision making and discusses the extent to which GIS can be applied to address health promotion and public health questions. The contribution of this literature review will be to generate a broader understanding of how GIS-related methodological techniques and tools developed in other disciplines can be meaningfully applied to applications in public health policy, promotion, and practice.
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it