MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163914700 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dag411

Barriers to addressing the societal determinants of health: public health units and poverty in Ontario, Canada

2003· article· en· W2163914700 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dennis Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionPublic healthSocial determinants of healthHealth policyPovertyPopulation healthInternational healthPolitical scienceHealth equityEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPublic relationsMedicineEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite Canada's reputation as a leader in health promotion and population health concepts, actual public health practice for the most part remains wedded to downstream strategies focussed on behaviour change. In Canada's largest province this has led to the implementation of a heart health promotion approach focussed on diet, activity and tobacco use. This is so despite increasing evidence that these approaches are generally ineffective, particularly for those at greatest risk. In addition, these strategies appear to divert public and governmental attention away from addressing the broader societal determinants of health. Examples of Ontario public health units that have begun to address societal determinants of health provide a counterbalance to the dominant paradigm that frames health as an individual responsibility. These new approaches focus attention upon the health-threatening effects of governments' regressive social and economic policies in a manner consistent with the best principles of health promotion.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations78
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207