Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community health psychology is concerned with the theory and method of working with communities to combat disease and to promote health.This introductory article outlines key assumptions and debates underlying this area of research and practicein the interests of framing the papers in this special edition of the Journal of Health Psychology.Attention is given to the value of emphasising the community level of analysis and action; the role of collective action in improving health; psycho-social mediators between community participation and health; and the potential role of partnerships in creating 'healthy communities'.A distinction is made between 'accommodationist' and 'critical' perspectives, and the authors debate whether or not significant social change can come from community-level action.Community health psychology 3 This special edition of the Journal of Health Psychology focuses on community health psychology, in the light of the editors' particular interest in global and local health inequalities, and the minimal role that mainstream psychology has played in contributing to debates about the causes of health inequalities and how best to challenge them.This collection of papers draws on research conducted in a range of settings, including the less affluent countries of Brazil, Ghana, India, South Africa and Tobago, and small and often marginalized communities in the more affluent countries of Canada, England, Scotland and Australia.The focus of the papers ranges widely from abstract theoretical debates, to empirical research findings, to issues relating to the evaluation of community psychology interventions and the training of community psychologists.Research participants include socially excluded youth, sex workers, people battling with diabetes, mental health challenges and eating disorders, school pupils at risk of HIV, and
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.034 |
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".