Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".