MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross-Sector Partnerships and Public Health: Challenges and Opportunities for Addressing Obesity and Noncommunicable Diseases Through Engagement with the Private Sector

2015· review· en· W2108856879 on OpenAlexaff
Lee M. Johnston, Diane T. Finegood

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate sectorGeneral partnershipPublic healthPublic sectorPublic relationsBusinessEconomic growthPublic–private partnershipPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthMedicineEconomicsNursingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few decades, cross-sector partnerships with the private sector have become an increasingly accepted practice in public health, particularly in efforts to address infectious diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Now these partnerships are becoming a popular tool in efforts to reduce and prevent obesity and the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases. Partnering with businesses presents a means to acquire resources, as well as opportunities to influence the private sector toward more healthful practices. Yet even though collaboration is a core principle of public health practice, public-private or nonprofit-private partnerships present risks and challenges that warrant specific consideration. In this article, we review the role of public health partnerships with the private sector, with a focus on efforts to address obesity and noncommunicable diseases in high-income settings. We identify key challenges-including goal alignment and conflict of interest-and consider how changes to partnership practice might address these.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.652
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations105
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207