MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130223517 · doi:10.1177/1025382308095654

The role of surveillance and data use in the development of public health policies

2008· article· en· W2130223517 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion & Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthBusinessPublic health surveillanceHealth policyPublic policyPopulationPublic relationsPublic economicsEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision makers consider numerous factors besides surveillance data in establishing public health policies and programmes. In an evidence-informed system, it is important to collect, interpret, and present information that has maximum impact on the broader policy agenda.Successful policies and programmes are rational, feasible, and practical, with wide public support. Surveillance systems must align and interact with the other parts of the policy infrastructure. There must be continuous links between data providers, collectors, and users. Data must be representative of population variations.For chronic diseases, the major challenge is multiple risks. Surveillance systems must capture many factors from many sources. Data must be presented in plain language and tailored to the needs of various users - politicians, policy makers, health providers, researchers, and the public. Data must be linked to other policy areas such as taxation. Economic arguments, including modelling, strongly influence decisions. Broad data ownership through alliances also has significant impact.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.232 · 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