Improving Health Equity: The Promising Role of Community Health Workers in Canada Improving Health Equity: The Promising Role of Community Health Workers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reports findings from an applied case study of collaboration between a commu-nity-based organization staffed by community health workers/multicultural health brokers (CHWs/MCHBs) serving immigrants and refugees and a local public health unit in Alberta, Canada. In this study, we explored the challenges, successes and unrealized potential of CHWs/MCHBs in facilitating culturally responsive access to healthcare and other social services for new immigrants and refugees. We suggest that health equity for marginalized populations such as new immigrants and refugees could be improved by increasing the role of CHWs in population health programs in Canada. Furthermore, we propose that recognition by health and social care agencies and institutions of CHWs/MCHBs, and the role they play in such programs, has the potential to transform the way we deliver healthcare services and address health equity challenges. Such recognition would also benefit CHWs and the popula-tions they serve.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".