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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurice B. Mittelmark

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.053
Scholarly communication0.0250.023
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207