Towards the development of skills-based health promotion competencies: the Canadian experience
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
The health promotion competencies presented in the Galway Consensus Conference Statement build on an emerging international literature that includes a proposed set of Canadian competencies developed for health promotion practitioners. In Canada, the creation of draft health promotion competencies by Health Promotion Ontario (HPO) was fueled by increased concerns about the potential marginalization of health promotion as well as a national public health renewal process that placed increased emphasis on competency development as a means of strengthening the public health workforce. This commentary presents the proposed Canadian competencies and provides an overview of the process utilized to develop them. Key similarities and differences between the proposed Canadian competencies and the competencies outlined in the Consensus Statement are also explored. The Canadian experience illustrates the way in which national health promotion competencies can be shaped by cultural and political factors unique to a specific jurisdiction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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