Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2011 Canadian election campaign demonstrates once again that while the health care debate is always a highly contested political issue, little of the discussion originates from, or is concerned with, citizens under 18 years of age. This paper responds to this gap in knowledge with findings from a qualitative, exploratory human rights study investigating the youth-led health promotion group REACT (Resist, Expose and Challenge [big] Tobacco). Under the auspices of the Chief Medical Officer, successive cohorts of high-school students have been working within the Niagara Public Health Region in Ontario, Canada since 2005. The main findings suggest that young people are fully competent to manage important aspects of their own health, and have led authorities to support health-enhancing behaviours for themselves and their peers. Moreover, it is clear that rights-based health promotion has been underutilized in Canada since dominant theoretical approaches to healthy development and traditional top-down institutional processes frequently overlook – and thus violate – the participatory human rights of young people. This violation represents a social justice issue with far-reaching consequences for equity in the overall health of the Canadian population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".