Introductionthe Health Promotion and Programs Branch of Health Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in Atlantic region started to focus on the determinants of health. At the top of the list of determinants of health is eincome and social statusi. It is a well-known fact that those who live in poverty are more likely to suffer ill health. The report Child Poverty in Atlantic Canada: A Discussion Paper 1 confirmed other evidence being published across the country. The problem of child poverty in Canada was staggering, and the problem was getting worse. Health Canada reached out to groups who work with people living in poverty and was quickly informed that echild povertyi is a misnomer. Children live in poor families. It is a condition that children do not control. If Canadians want to help poor children, we have to face the facts about poverty and to address the policies and conditions that influence poverty. Even the word epovertyi is misleading. Poverty cannot be described simply by low income levels. Ironically, some people can manage a high quality of life on a low income while others can be caught in terrible life circumstances at the same income level. Our traditional ideas about poverty, left over from our grandparentsi experience during the depression, are not based on todayis experience of eliving below the poverty linei. The real problem is social and economic exclusion.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.216 | 0.022 |
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".