MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307050698 · doi:10.1177/1757975915595341

Healthy Cities and the Transition movement: converging towards ecological well-being?

2016· article· en· W2307050698 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Patrick, Mark Dooris, Blake Poland

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityTransition (genetics)Movement (music)Promotion (chess)Political scienceGeographyBiologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary identifies similarities, differences and opportunities for synergy and mutual learning between the Healthy Cities and the Transition movements. We outline what we consider to be the 'pressing issues' facing humanity and the planet in the early 21(st) century; consider the extent to which health promotion has engaged with and addressed these issues; compare Healthy Cities and the Transition movement; and conclude by suggesting possibilities for moving forward.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health PromotionSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207