Understanding the structure of community collaboration: the case of one Canadian health promotion network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, over 6.8 million Canadians were considered overweight, with an additional 2.4 million labeled clinically obese. Due to these escalating levels of obesity in Canada, physical activity is being championed by politicians, physicians, educators and community members as a means to address this health crisis. In doing so, many organizations are being called upon to provide essential physical activity services and programs to combat rising obesity rates. Yet, strategies for achieving these organizations' mandates, which invariably involve stretching already scarce resources, are difficult to implement and sustain. One strategy for improving the health and physical activity levels of people in communities has been the creation of inter-organizational networks of service providers. Yet, little is known about whether networks are effective in addressing policy issues in non-clinical health settings. The purpose of this investigation was 2-fold; to use whole network analysis to determine the structure of one health promotion network in Canada, and to identify the types of ties shared by actors in the health network. Findings revealed a network wherein information sharing constituted the basis for collaboration, whereas efforts related to sharing resources, marketing and/or fundraising endeavors were less evident.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".