MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600107964

Planning for Healthy Communities in Nova Scotia: The current state of practice.

2013· dissertation· en· W2600107964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaNova (rocket)Current (fluid)State (computer science)Environmental planningGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceOceanographyEngineeringGeologyAeronauticsArchaeologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing recognition of the importance of the built environment in mediating people’s health related decisions, such as whether to walk rather than drive, or what types of food to purchase. The built environment has been identified as a significant determinant of health by the World Health Organization and many other organizations across the globe. This has spurred research on how and to what extent community design impacts health. Most research in Canada has been focused on major urban centres. Research in rural contexts on the connection between planning and health is limited. Despite much research on land-use and design to support healthy communities, how planners interpret the application of this research within the social, political, and jurisdictional confines of their planning practice is largely unexamined. Through an online survey and 10 semi-structured interviews with planners in Nova Scotia, the question of whether and how rural planners should address health issues is explored. The intention of this research is to better understand the connection rural planners see between their planning practice and health issues in their communities. This research found that planners indicated that health is important to address in planning practice, which confirms recent national level research. However, each respondent’s interpretation of health and how it related to planning practice was slightly different. Working with public health workers and agencies was supported as a way to improve community health, but most participants saw themselves as consultants to public health staff concerning projects and initiatives to support healthy communities rather than as collaborators. Provincial government “silos” were cited as the biggest barrier to implementation of planning practices to address health issues like physical inactivity. Results confirm what has been identified in the literature as barriers to rural planners addressing community health issues.

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)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207