MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162017516 · doi:10.1093/heapro/16.3.269

Promoting social responsibility for health: health impact assessment and healthy public policy at the community level

2001· article· en· W2162017516 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth impact assessmentHealth promotionDeclarationPublic healthHealth policyPublic relationsSocial determinants of healthPolitical scienceHealth equityMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1997 Jakarta Declaration on Health Promotion into the 21st Century called for new responses to address the emerging threats to health. The declaration placed a high priority on promoting social responsibility for health, and it identified equity-focused health impact assessment as a high priority for action. This theme was among the foci at the 2000 Fifth Global Conference on Health Promotion held in Mexico. This paper, which is an abbreviation of a technical report prepared for the Mexico conference, advances arguments for focusing on health impact assessment at the local level. Health impact assessment identifies negative health impacts that call for policy responses, and identifies and encourages practices and policies that promote health. Health impact assessment may be highly technical and require sophisticated technology and expertise. But it can also be a simple, highly practical process, accessible to ordinary people, and one that helps a community come to grips with local circumstances that need changing for better health. To illustrate the possibilities, this paper presents a case study, the People Assessing Their Health (PATH) project from Eastern Nova Scotia, Canada. It places ordinary citizens, rather than community elites, at the very heart of local decision-making. Evidence from PATH demonstrates that low technology health impact assessment, done by and for local people, can shift thinking beyond the illness problems of individuals. It can bring into consideration, instead, how programmes and policies support or weaken community health, and illuminate a community's capacity to improve local circumstances for better health. This stands in contrast to evidence that highly technological approaches to community-level health impact assessment can be self-defeating. Further development of simple, people-centred, low technology approaches to health impact assessment at the local level is called for.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.318 · 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