Universal and targeted policy to achieve health equity: a critical analysis of the example of community water fluoridation cessation in Calgary, Canada in 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May of 2011, a decision was made by city council in Calgary, Canada, to cease community water fluoridation and to re-allocate the annual operating costs to targeted dental programming. The purpose of this study was to critically analyze this decision as an example of a shift from a universal approach (fluoridation) to a targeted approach (dental programming delivered to children in low-income communities). We were especially interested in how the concept of equity played out in the deliberations, and we used Hilary Graham’s three conceptualizations of equity as a framework. We examined publicly available municipal council documents pertaining to this policy decision, with a prominent focus on the 26 January 2011 meeting of the Standing Policy Committee on Utilities and Environment at which Calgarians (citizens and professionals) were invited to speak. We extracted and critiqued statements or exchanges pertaining to equity or related concepts (e.g. poverty). We observed different perspectives on the concept of equity, and the notion of community water fluoridation as equitable. In particular, there was a tendency, expressed strongly by some participants in the debate, to conflate equity and poverty (Graham’s ‘disadvantages’ conceptualization of equity), such that a targeted approach was seen as the only viable way of addressing the dental health needs of children living in poverty. This research is timely considering the apparently increasing frequency of cessation of fluoridation in Canada, the consequent search for alternative approaches to preventive dental health, and the apparently strong appeal of a targeted approach.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.085 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".