Social media, knowledge translation, and action on the social determinants of health and health equity: A survey of public health practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth of social media presents opportunities for public health to increase its influence and impact on the social determinants of health and health equity. The National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health at St. Francis Xavier University conducted a survey during the first half of 2016 to assess how public health used social media for knowledge translation, relationship building, and specific public health roles to advance health equity. Respondents reported that social media had an important role in public health. Uptake of social media, while relatively high for personal use, was less present in professional settings and varied for different platforms. Over 20 per cent of those surveyed used Twitter or Facebook at least weekly for knowledge exchange. A lesser number used social media for specific health equity action. Opportunities to enhance the use of social media in public health persist. Capacity building and organizational policies that support social media use may help achieve this.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it