MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153183574 · doi:10.1177/10253823070140040601

Health promotion in Canada: 1986 to 2006

2007· article· en· W2153183574 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion & Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHealth promotionPublic healthGovernment (linguistics)Health policyHealth carePolitical scienceCornerstonePromotion (chess)International healthEconomic growthHealth educationMedicinePublic relationsPublic administrationNursingGeographyPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of health promotion in Canada between 1986 and 2006 is characterized by three major eras: Health Promotion in the Limelight, 1986-1992, Health Promotion Behind the Scenes, 1993-2003, and Health Promotion Restaged, 2003-2006. These eras are illustrated using the Canadian Heart Health Initiative as an example. The first era, backed by strong federal government leadership and support, was a progressive time of developing concepts, collaborations and infrastructure for health promotion across the country. Despite significant progress, by the end of this era, health promotion was neither sufficiently developed nor funded to make it a cornerstone of the health system. In addition, the emphasis was heavily biased towards changing individual behaviour. In the second era, health promotion continued to develop in pockets across the country and debates within the field intensified. However, these events went largely unnoticed and massive overall cuts at federal and provincial levels of government made acute care a much higher priority than health promotion. The third era, mostly shaped by fears linked to public health threats, saw a restaging of health promotion through efforts to strengthen public health infrastructure. Nevertheless, at the end of this era, the necessary intersectoral partnerships (such as in health, housing, education, food, income) remained scarce, and little progress was made to decrease health inequalities. The Canadian Heart Health Initiative was implemented over the same time period as the three eras. Its legacy includes collegial relationships across various levels of government and with non-government organizations, a culture that values pan-Canadian initiatives, and support for integration of research, evaluation, surveillance, policy and practice. It remains to be seen how quickly it will be possible to advance the vision of health promotion conceived during the Limelight Era in Canada.

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)0.000
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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.371 · 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