Conceptualizing Dissemination Research and Activity: The Case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative
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
Cardiovascular diseases are now the world's leading cause of death. To reduce high rates of such preventable premature deaths, evidence-based approaches to heart health promotion must be disseminated across public health systems. To succeed, we must build capacity to disseminate strategies that are practical and effective. However, we know little about such dissemination, and we lack both conceptual frameworks to guide our thinking and appropriate scientific methodologies. This article presents conceptual and analytic frameworks that integrate several approaches to understanding and studying dissemination processes within public health systems. This work is based on the Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project, a research program examining a national heart health dissemination initiative. The primary focus is the development of a systematic protocol for measuring levels of capacity and dissemination, and determining successful conditions for, and barriers to, capacity and dissemination, as well as the nature of the relationship between these key concepts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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