Estudo comparativo de práticas de promoção da saúde na atenção primária em Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil e Toronto, Ontário, Canadá
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 study aimed to compare the experiences with the organization of universal public healthcare systems in relation to health promotion in primary care units in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina State, Brazil, and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This was a descriptive exploratory study with a qualitative approach in primary care units. Data were collected with semi-structured interviews containing questions on health promotion practices, with 25 health professionals in Florianópolis and 10 in Toronto. The data were discussed using thematic analysis, identifying the practices, difficulties, and facilities in health promotion. In the two cities, 60% of health professionals and health administrators had not received any specific knowledge on health promotion during their training. As for health promotion skills, health professionals in Toronto identified them with autonomy and social determinants, while in Florianópolis they were related to health education and community participation. In both cities, health promotion practices are targeted to individual and collective activities. The motivation to act comes from interdisciplinarity and the demands raised by the population. Health promotion is a relevant form of care and stimulus for individual and community autonomy, in light of social determinants. Such practices aim at comprehensive health for the community, but there are limits in the teams that still conduct disease-centered activities. Resources are limited, requiring inter-sector actions to improve quality of life. Healthcare centers on the hegemonic model, and progress is needed to achieve a positive approach to health and social determinants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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