Ideological and organizational components of differing public health strategies for addressing the social determinants of health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a history of conceptual contributions to reducing health inequalities by addressing the social determinants of health (SDH), Canadian governmental authorities have struggled to put these concepts into action. Ontario's-Canada's most populous province-public health scene shows a similar pattern. In statements and reports, governmental ministries, professional associations and local public health units (PHUs) recognize the importance of these issues, yet there has been varying implementation of these concepts into public health activity. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the key features responsible for differences in SDH-related activities among local PHUs. We interviewed Medical Officers of Health (MOH) and key staff members from nine local PHUs in Ontario varying in SDH activity as to their understandings of the SDH, public health's role in addressing the SDH, and their units' SDH-related activities. We also reviewed their unit's documents and their organizational structures in relation to acting on the SDH. Three clusters of PHUs are identified based on their SDH-related activities: service-delivery-oriented; intersectoral and community-based; and public policy/public education-focused. The two key factors that differentiate PHUs are specific ideological commitments held by MOHs and staff and the organizational structures established to carry out SDH-related activities. The ideological commitments and the organizational structures of the most active PHUs showed congruence with frameworks adopted by national jurisdictions known for addressing health inequalities. These include a structural analysis of the SDH and a centralized organizational structure that coordinates SDH-related activities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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".