Bibliographic record
Abstract
Program sustainability is an ongoing concern for most people in health promotion. However, the current notion of sustainability in organizations, namely routinization, needs refinement. This article examines organizational routines. In so doing, it refines the notion of sustainability and the assessment of routines. Drawing on the organizational literature, a routinized program is defined by the presence of routinized activities, meaning that these activities exhibit four characteristics of organizational routines: memory, adaptation, values and rules. To answer the question of how these characteristics are useful, we conducted an empirical study of the routinization of the Quebec Heart Health Demonstration Project in five community health centers. Our method consisted of a multiple-case study. We observed project activities in each center in 2000. The data came from documents and interviews with project actors. Our results show that, in one of the centers, no resources had been officially committed to project activities. Even so, the actors continued some activities on an informal basis. In another center, the activities satisfied three of the four routine characteristics. In the three others, activities satisfied all of the characteristics. These results suggest focusing the study of program sustainability on the routinization of activities resulting from it. They indicate four distinct degrees of sustainability: (1) the absence of sustainability; no program activity is continued; (2) precarious sustainability; some residual activities are pursued, at least unofficially; (3) weak sustainability; the program produces some official activities that are not routinized; and (4) sustainability through routinization; routinized activities result from the program.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".