Themes in geographies of health and health care research: Reflections from the 2012 Canadian Association of Geographers annual meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May 2012, the Canadian Association of Geographers (CAG) annual meeting in Waterloo, Ontario, attracted strong attendance by scholars whose research explores the geographies of health and health care. The CAG's Geography of Health and Health Care Specialty Group organized 14 special paper sessions spanning three consecutive days and involving 53 presenters; 24 health‐focused papers were also given in other sessions throughout the CAG meeting, for a total of 77 presenters. In this viewpoint, we draw upon the diverse geographies of health and health care scholarship presented at this meeting to provide a snapshot of some current research themes in Canadian health geography. Five interrelated themes were identified, namely: 1) aging, disability, and chronic disease; (2) environmental determinants and health; (3) accessing health and health‐promoting services; (4) diversity and intersecting positions; and (5) research methods and frameworks. We believe that identifying themes from the 2012 CAG annual meeting provides insight regarding what issues, topics, methods, and frameworks are inspiring Canadian health geographers, while also serving as a baseline for comparison of future trends and directions for future research.
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 | 0.035 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.068 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| 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".