MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414648316

The Saskatchewan dissemination story.

2001· article· en· W2414648316 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ebbesen Ls, Woodard Gb, Scott B McLean, David Butler-Jones, K Green, Reeder Ba, Sophia Steer, J Feather

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyContext (archaeology)PopulationHealth promotionSocioeconomicsRural areaPublic healthArchaeologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthMedicineSociologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Saskatchewan Heart Health Program (SHHP) Dissemination Phase "Building Health Promotion Capacity" is a five-year program funded by Health Canada, Saskatchewan Health and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Saskatchewan. This phase began in July 1998 and builds on two previous SHHP phases: the provincial heart health survey (Saskatchewan Health, 1990), and the community demonstration projects (SHHP, 1998a, b, c, d). The evolution of the SHHP has occurred in a dynamic provincial context. Saskatchewan is a Canadian prairie province of one million people with most living in the southern and central parts of the province. The population is ageing and urbanizing, and the economy is shifting away from agricultural production toward a diversified service sector. In 1993, health reform created 30 Districts in southern and central Saskatchewan; the formation of three northern Districts followed five years later. All but two Districts are rural-based. Population served ranges from 2,261 to 237,274; total area ranges from 4,019 to 133,900 square kilometers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1410.043

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207