Disseminating Chronic Disease Prevention “to or With” Canadian Public Health Systems
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 article follows a conceptual article published in this journal by Elliott et al. and provides an empirical evaluation of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative-Dissemination Phase. Between 1994 and 2005, seven provincial research teams of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative-Dissemination Phase undertook projects to disseminate and evaluate the uptake of evidence-based chronic disease prevention strategies in their respective health systems. In this study, the authors draw from document and stakeholder interview analyses to assess the influence of strategic decisions about dissemination objects, targets, activities, and relationships between knowledge producers and users on the outcomes of chronic disease prevention programming. The findings show that successful dissemination strategies are not necessarily contingent on a high level of fidelity across these dimensions but depend more on the extent to which they are responsive to contextual variables within highly dynamic health systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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