Health promotion policy in Canada: lessons forgotten, lessons still to learn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyse Canadian health promotion discourse past and present, in the context of selected federal and provincial government policy initiatives. Principally, we examine the health promotion discourse articulated in A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians, Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Promotion, the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, Improving the Health of Canadians, and Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy-Volume II-Synthesis reports and Issue papers. We argue that the health promotion lessons of the past 30 years contained within these reports have largely been forgotten, overlooked or disregarded in policy implementation. We conclude, as have many before us, that successful health promotion policy needs to reflect a collectivist rather than individualist ethos where responsibility for the health of Canadians is concerned. Moreover, it needs to be one that addresses the social determinants of health, including inequity, via the coordination of healthy 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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".