MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111824749 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaa121

Black Lives Matter in health promotion: moving from unspoken to outspoken

2020· article· en· W3111824749 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Leitch, J. Hope Corbin, Nikita Boston-Fisher, Christa Ayele, Peter Delobelle, Fungisai Gwanzura Ottemöller, Tulani Francis L. Matenga, Oliver Mweemba, Ann Pederson, Josette Wicker

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolice brutalityRacismHealth promotionCriminologyPublic healthLife expectancyHealth equitySociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineGender studiesPopulationEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Racism is a public health crisis. Black communities (including Africans, the African diaspora and people of African descent) experience worse health outcomes as demonstrated by almost any measure of health and wellbeing-e.g. life expectancy; disease prevalence; maternal mortality rates. While health promotion has its foundation in promoting equity and social justice, it is clear that however well-intended, we are not affecting meaningful change for Black communities quickly enough. Through this article, we outline the intersection of social determinants of health and anti-Black racism. We describe how in the first 8 months of 2020 Black communities around the globe have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, while also having to respond to new instances of police brutality. We assert that the time has come for health promotion to stop neutralizing the specific needs of Black communities into unspoken 'good intentions'. Instead, we offer some concrete ways for the field to become outspoken, intentional and honest in acknowledging what it will take to radically shift how we promote health and wellbeing for Black people.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.030
Scholarly communication0.0180.012
Open science0.0010.019
Research integrity0.0080.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207