MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137779754 · doi:10.1093/heapro/17.1.61

Influence of health promotion bureaucracy on community participation: a Canadian case study

2002· article· en· W2137779754 on OpenAlex
William F. Boyce

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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsBureaucracyHealth promotionPromotion (chess)Citizen journalismPolitical sciencePublic relationsParticipatory action researchCommunity participationPublic administrationEconomic growthSociologySocioeconomicsHealth carePoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through a Canadian case study, the bureaucratic support and obstacles for community participation in health promotion. The paper begins with a brief history of the development of a participatory health promotion programme in Canada. The role of bureaucracies on participation of communities is highlighted. Secondly, the paper describes how a variety of bureaucratic factors affected grassroots community participation efforts of local projects in one province. Finally, discussion focuses on how community participation is constrained in a bureau-cratically mediated activity such as health promotion.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.195 · 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