Mobilizing Local Authorities Around Public Health Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Analysis and Review of European Housing and Health Status (LARES) was conducted in Europe in 2002 to 2003 to study the relationship between citizens' health and built environments. One of its objectives was to put public health priorities on the agenda of local decision-makers to implement solutions for the community. We adapted the LARES protocol as a pilot project in a small French-Canadian town in Quebec Province in 2012. The distinguishing feature of this project was the collaborative approach taken with local actors, especially the municipality, which was committed a priori to using survey data from an urban planning perspective. The project produced interesting results that were used to motivate actions concerning people living in bad sanitary conditions; to draft the urban plan including the development of parks, green spaces, and bicycle paths; and to allow the municipality to meet eligibility criteria for access to renovation programs. If a partnership with the local actors and their commitment to promote and realize the project were obtained at the beginning, then the survey could be replicated in other communities.
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 | 0.070 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".