A Rapid Review of Evaluation Capacity-Building Strategies for Chronic Disease Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: There has yet, it seems, to be a review of the literature specifically exploring evaluation capacity building (ECB) for chronic disease prevention (CDP). To guide efforts to build evaluation capacity for CDP, a rapid review of the literature was undertaken using systematic methods. A search was conducted of the grey and academic literature to explore ECB strategies in CDP, and 14 articles were retained. CDP ECB strategies were similar to general public health ECB efforts (multi-strategy, context-specific, experiential). Articles included a focus on how to maintain ECB over long periods and in light of staff turnover, both of which were described as being prevalent in the CDP context. Evaluating influence at multiple levels (individual, organizational, system) is also important. There is room for more clarity about the “how” of ECB strategies, and about specificity to CDP.
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 | 0.044 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".