An evaluability assessment to develop a restaurant health promotion program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluability assessment was conducted to develop a standard, provincial restaurant health promotion program that public health units across Ontario can adopt. This assessment focused on extensive stakeholder consultation to develop a program logic model to diagrammatically describe the assumptions underlying the program. First, details about existing restaurant health promotion programs were analyzed to assist in planning the program. Based on this review, a provincial steering committee recommended that restaurants must meet minimum requirements for nutrition, food safety and non-smoking seating standards to qualify for recognition. Second, stakeholders were consulted about the program goal, target groups, and these and other possible standards. This entailed conducting focus groups with restaurant patrons and interviewing public health unit staff, restaurateurs and food service suppliers. A workgroup developed a draft logic model based on the results of the consultation. Third, community focus groups, public health unit surveys and expert reviews were conducted to assess the plausibility of the logic model. The workgroup revised the logic model based on the results of this consultation. The final logic model conceptualizes the program as: (i) three program standards for restaurateurs; (ii) social marketing activities targeted to consumers and restaurateurs; (iii) education and skill development activities targeted to restaurant managers and staff, public health unit staff and volunteers; and (iv) environmental support activities targeted to restaurateurs, public health unit staff and volunteers. The logic model shows the relationship between long-term, intermediate and short-term desired outcomes and program activities that need to be implemented provincially and locally to achieve the desired outcomes. The final logic model was subsequently communicated to various stakeholders. It is apparent that the evaluability assessment involved considerable stakeholder participation to develop the program. Thus, they should be more likely to agree with the program design and participate in the restaurant program in their community.
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 | 0.184 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".