Enjeux de la pratique en évaluation d’impact sur la santé : observations sur l’expérimentation de cette démarche au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Quebec Government Policy of Prevention in Health incited several regional Public health departments (PHD) to initiate health impact assessment (HIA) as a way to strengthen collaboration with municipal decision makers and improve their projects of urban planning projects. This article presents the main HIA implementation issues encountered in the last two years and the solutions applied or envisaged. METHOD: The documentation of the issues is based on the observations of HIA experts drawn from working sessions with practitioners from different regional PHDs and from the activities of a community of practice. RESULTS: Five issues have been identified : appropriation of the HIA process and new skills, support and collaboration of municipal partners, intersectoral work, access to expertise and evidence as well as HIA funding. DISCUSSION: A common implementation framework offering different tools, a scientific support and a vibrant community of practice will help to develop skills of practitioners and capacities of their respective organizations. These solid foundations will increase the credibility and relevance of HIA for municipal partners. CONCLUSION: An in-depth evaluation will be carried out at the end of the experiment to examine the relevance, feasibility and acceptability of HIA and to better understand the conditions necessary for a successful integration of this practice in various contexts. It will make it possible to assess whether the services and instrumentation made available to practitioners are useful or how they can be improved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".