Systems Science and Obesity Policy: A Novel Framework for Analyzing and Rethinking Population-Level Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We demonstrate the use of a systems-based framework to assess solutions to complex health problems such as obesity. METHODS: We coded 12 documents published between 2004 and 2013 aimed at influencing obesity planning for complex systems design (9 reports from US and Canadian governmental or health authorities, 1 Cochrane review, and 2 Institute of Medicine reports). We sorted data using the intervention-level framework (ILF), a novel solutions-oriented approach to complex problems. An in-depth comparison of 3 documents provides further insight into complexity and systems design in obesity policy. RESULTS: The majority of strategies focused mainly on changing the determinants of energy imbalance (food intake and physical activity). ILF analysis brings to the surface actions aimed at higher levels of system function and points to a need for more innovative policy design. CONCLUSIONS: Although many policymakers acknowledge obesity as a complex problem, many strategies stem from the paradigm of individual choice and are limited in scope. The ILF provides a template to encourage natural systems thinking and more strategic policy design grounded in complexity science.
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 | 0.044 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".