“It’s a Feel. That’s What a Lot of Our Evidence Would Consist of ”: Public Health Practitioners’ Perspectives on Evidence
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
This article describes how evidence is defined and used in two British Columbia public health departments during the implementation of a Healthy Living initiative in 2009. Through interviews with 21 public health staff and decision makers, the author sought to investigate how "evidence" was defined by both frontline and management staff and how it was used in decision making. The authors found public health staff, particularly frontline practitioners, to be drawn to grassroots and local "lived experience" evidence. This tacit wisdom, in combination with evidence from academia and clinical evidence accessed through disciplinary or professional networks, offered a knowledge transition opportunity to inform decision making, rather than what can be characterized in the literature as unidirectional knowledge translation. It is often difficult for staff to digest and interpret research as part of their work day because of the volume and density of information that typically counts as evidence. Moreover, there exist challenges to identify and gather indicators as evidence of their work.
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 | 0.041 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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