Social inequalities in availability of health-promoting interventions in Québec elementary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Availability of health-promoting interventions (HPIs) may vary across schools serving students with different socioeconomic backgrounds. Our objectives were to describe social inequalities across elementary schools in: (i) level of importance that school principals attribute to 13 common health-related issues among students in their school; (ii) availability of HPIs within their school addressing eight health topics and (iii) (mis)alignment between perceived importance and HPI availability. Data were collected in telephone interviews with school principals in a convenience sample of 171 elementary schools (59% of 291 schools contacted). Schools were categorized as serving very advantaged, moderately advantaged or disadvantaged students. Principals reported how important 13 health issues were among students in their schools and provided data on HPI availability for 8 health issues, 4 of which required school action under government mandates. Higher proportions of principals in schools serving disadvantaged students (36% of all 171 schools) perceived most health issues as important. The mean number of HPIs in the past year was 12.0, 12.1 and 11.7 in schools serving very advantaged, moderately advantaged and disadvantaged students, respectively. Only availability of mental health HPIs differed by school deprivation (60, 43 and 30% in very, moderately and disadvantaged, respectively). Although most schools offered oral health HPIs, dental problems were not perceived as important. Smoking was perceived as not important and smoking-related HPIs were relatively rare (9%). Given rapid evolution in public health priorities, (mis)alignment between perceived importance of specific health issues and HPI availability in elementary schools warrants ongoing reflection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".