MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133102361 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dag408

Issues in measuring health promotion capacity in Canada: a multi-province perspective

2004· article· en· W2133102361 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Health promotionPromotion (chess)Environmental healthPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic healthNursingComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant international progress has been made researching and addressing the economic and social burden of cardiovascular disease, advanced particularly by international conferences and subsequent declarations, and the Canadian Heart Health Initiative (CHHI). The implementation focus of the CHHI on building capacity for heart health promotion is paralleled by efforts to measure capacity. Through the collective experience of Heart Health Programs in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, critical issues in measuring health promotion capacity are identified and strategies for addressing them are presented. The provincial contexts for the programs vary, as do the conceptualizations of capacity and intervention strategies to build capacity. Yet, despite such differences across provinces, shared issues influencing measuring capacity number many. These include: multiple understandings of terms; evolving understanding of capacity; invisibility of capacity building; detecting change within a dynamic system; staff turnover; time course required for change; attribution for change in capacity; understanding a process through 'snap-shot' measurements; lack of existing 'gold standard' measurement tools; validity and credibility of instruments; evolving nature of measurement tools; gathering perspectives from multiple levels within organizations; dealing with conflicting perspectives; and managing and disseminating sensitive data. A number of strategies have been devised or adopted to address measurement issues, ranging from adopting participatory processes to the development of monitoring systems. Understanding and addressing issues in measuring capacity deserve attention as they may be potent influences in the dynamic interplay between research and intervention in the process of capacity building in the context of health promotion generally, and/or heart health specifically.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.188 · 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