MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127135250 · doi:10.1177/1359105304040888

Partnerships and Participation of Community Residents in Health Promotion and Prevention: Experiences of the Highfield Community Enrichment Project (Better Beginnings, Better Futures)

2004· review· en· W2127135250 on OpenAlex
Geoffrey Nelson, S. Mark Pancer, Karen Hayward, Rick Kelly

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown CollegeRegent Park Community Health CentreWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractGeneral partnershipPromotion (chess)Health promotionEmpowermentContext (archaeology)Public relationsEconomic growthBusinessPolitical scienceNursingMedicinePublic healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a description and analysis of the role of partnerships between community residents and service-providers in planning and implementing a health promotion/prevention programme for children and families. The context for this study is the Highfield Community Enrichment Project, a multi-component, community-based promotion/prevention project operating in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The nature and amount of resident participation in this project are described, as well as barriers to resident participation and strategies to reduce those barriers. The findings are interpreted in terms of empowerment and partnership theory, and the implications of these findings for involving citizens from low-income communities in planning promotion/prevention programmes are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.432
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.152 · 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