Dissemination of heart health promotion in the Ontario Public Health System: 1989-1999
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an analysis of the dissemination of community-based heart health promotion strategies. The research draws on diffusion and socio-ecological theories to study the first 10 years of heart health promotion in the public health system in Ontario, Canada. Using case description and interpretive analysis, the study describes developments in five stages of dissemination, and examines the interplay of factors operating in the internal organizational setting and the external environment in order to explain these developments. Findings demonstrate that dissemination of health promotion is a long-term, iterative process involving multiple stages. Dissemination is influenced by a complex interplay of factors operating within the public health system (especially traditional public health practice and champions) and factors in the environment in which the public health system operates (especially research, practice information and health policies). Implications are that policy makers should take a long-term view of dissemination, identify intermediate and long-term goals consistent with dissemination stages, and capitalize on internal and external forces supporting dissemination goals. Similar case-study research in other public health systems and time periods, and in more advanced stages of dissemination, will add further insight into the dissemination process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it