MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234869016

Fostering healthy communities @ Hair Care Centers.

2003· article· en· W2234869016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hendricks Cs

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionCharterHealth carePolitical scienceInternational healthPoliticsEquity (law)Government (linguistics)Economic growthPublic relationsPublic administrationMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The author discusses the planning and development of a unique method of reaching African American clients by Chi Eta Phi Sorority, Inc. members in the state of South Carolina through use of beauty shops and barber shops, which is termed Hair Care Centers. Using bulletin boards which are placed in these establishments, the members of Chi Eta Phi Sorority, Inc. change the educational materials monthly based on the minority health awareness themes created by the Office of Minority Health in Washington, DC. The goal of Project F-HC is to take selfcare, health promoting, disease prevention information to places where persons frequent, making it easily accessible. Key Words: Healthy Communities; African American Health; Hair Care Centers he Healthy Communities Initiative evolved from the Healthy Cities Movement that began in 1984 in Canada and in 1986 the World Health Organization T (WHO) Regional Office for Europe initiated the WHO Healthy Cities Project. Today, the Healthy Cities Project is an international movement involving over a thousand cities. Initially, 11 cities were selected to participate in the project; however, the current phase includes 35 cities, 23 national networks and over 650 European cities (Flynn & Dennis, 1996). This international movement mobilizes local government, professionals, citizens and private and volunteer organizations to put health promotion on the city's political agenda with guiding principles of health for all (Primary Health Care, 1978; Ottawa Charter for Health Promotions, 1986). The principles include: equity, health promotion, community participation, multisectoral cooperation, appropriate technology, primary health care and international cooperation. Several communities in South Carolina are participating in the South Carolina Healthy Communities Initiative (Healthy Communities Initiative, 1996). In an effort to promote the concept of Healthy Communities, the South Carolina Nurses Foundation placed a call for proposals from nurses working with groups and agencies indicating how they could promote the concept of Healthy Communities in South Carolina. A collaborative proposal among the South Carolina Chapters of Chi Eta Phi Sorority, Inc. was submitted, Fostering Healthy Communities Hair Care Centers or Project F-HC. Description of Proposed Project Project F-HC (Fostering Healthy Communities Ca) Hair Care Centers) proposes to take health care education information to sites within communities most frequented by the citizenry across socioeconomic status. Beauty and barber shops (hereafter referred to as Hair Care Centers) are one of the community sites where persons tend to visit at least on a monthly basis. Many persons spend anywhere from one-half hour per visit to as much as four hours. Hair Care Centers (HCC) are probably visited more than any other community place excluding religious institutions and grocery stores. It is estimated that most HCCs have at least twenty persons come through their doors on a daily basis. The goal of Project F-HC is to take self-care, health promoting, disease prevention information to places where persons frequent making it easily accessible. Project F-HC is being implemented through the collaborative efforts of the South Carolina Chapters of Chi Eta Phi Nursing Sorority, Inc. The chapter members identified HCCs in their community that were willing to participate in the project. Bulletin boards are mounted in the HCCs that will be designated for use only by the project. Health information will be displayed on a monthly basis for the next twelve months. Health emphasis topics were selected using the monthly national health awareness themes as a guide and the aggregate needs (i.e., January is Glaucoma Awareness month, November is Diabetes month, etc.). All sites will follow the same information rotation; however, if an HCC expresses a specific request, every effort will be made to address the request. When considering HCCs as health information sites, space is always a concern. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207