Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although environmental health and justice concerns have long since been recognized as determinant of human health, environmental health is not frequently viewed as a primary health concern within healthcare centres. This exploratory paper examines how Community Health Centres (CHCs) in Toronto are integrating environmental health and/or justice perspectives into their health promotion initiatives, whether they have changed over the years, and why. Two case studies, the South Riverdale Community Health Centre and the Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood Community Health Centre, were examined through review of academic literature, existing public documentation, and interviews as a means to provide a sample of CHCs. Analysis yielded the discovery that though environmental health perspectives are still being integrated into health promotion methods and strategies, many uncontrollable factors such as funding, community interest, and pre-existing social concerns influence whether environmental health programming can be delivered. Rather, it was determined that the majority of current environmental health perspectives are mainly integrated into other forms of health promotion, such as physical or mental health. General recommendations are made at the end of the paper addressed to the two case studies, all CHCs, and the healthcare system, for improving overall health outcomes of communities through CHCs utilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".