Organizational leadership and its relationship to regional health authority actions to promote health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine organizational leadership and its relationship to regional health authority actions to promote health. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Through use of four previously developed measures of Perceived Organizational Leadership for Health Promotion, this paper focused on leadership as a distributed entity within regional health authority (RHA) jurisdictions mandated to address the health of the population in the province of Alberta, Canada. FINDINGS: First, examination of differentials between organizational levels (i.e. board members, n = 30; middle/senior management, n = 58; and service providers, n = 56) on ratings of the four leadership measures revealed significant differences. That is, board members tended to rate leadership components significantly higher than service providers and middle/senior managers: from across all 17 RHAs; and in low health promotion capacity and high health promotion capacity RHAs. Second, regression analyses identified that the leadership measures "Practices for Organizational Learning" and "Wellness Planning" were positively associated with health authority actions on improving population heart health (heart health promotion). The presence of a "Champion for Heart Health Promotion" and the leadership measures "Workplace Milieu" and "Organization Member Development" were also positively associated with health authority actions for health promotion. A subsidiary aim revealed low to moderate positive relationships of the dimensions of Leadership, Infrastructure and Will to Act with one another, as proposed by the Alberta Model on "Organizational Capacity Building for Health Promotion." ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper, conducted on the baseline dataset (n = 144) of the "Alberta Heart Health Project's Dissemination Phase", represents a rare effort to examine leadership at a collective organizational level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".