Community Capacity Building for Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a great deal of literature examining the benefits and relevance of community participation and community capacity building in health promotion and disease prevention endeavors. Academic literature embracing principles and commitment to community participation in health promotion practices often neglects the complexities involved and the flexibility required to work within this approach. This article addresses some of these challenges through a case study of two projects funded by Provincial Wellness Grants in Newfoundland and Labrador, a province in Canada with a strong tradition of community ties and support systems. In addition to addressing the unique circumstances of the community groups, this research allowed the authors to examine the situational context and power relations involved in the provision of services as well as the particular forms of subjectivity and citizenship that the institutional practices support. Recognizing this complex interdependency is an important step in creating more effective intervention practices.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.003 |
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".