Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health outcomes in rural populations are known to be generally worse than in urban populations but there are some exceptions to this trend. Most research evaluating these disparities has focused on rural communities with poor health outcomes. The current study set out to explore the factors that make some rural communities healthier than others. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 12 key informants in a rural community within a healthy outlier region. The interview guide was based on the Social-Ecological Model of health and the focus was on community - as opposed to facility-based health. Interview data were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) availability of amenities, (2) healthy lifestyle as a shared value, (3) transition from a mining community, (4) geographic location and (5) challenges. CONCLUSION: Many of the findings challenge traditional assumptions about determinants of health in rural communities. The phenomenon of 'amenity migration' from urban to rural areas which may increase in coming years, is one that can have important implications for health.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".