A bibliometric analysis of <i>Health Promotion International</i> content regarding unions, unionization and collective agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent article brought together the health benefits of unionization and working under collective agreements. It was noted how Canadian health promotion texts, reports and statements made no mention of unionization and working under collective agreements as promoting health. This was seen as a significant omission and reasons for this were considered. In this article this analysis is extended to consider how contributors to the flagship health promotion journal Health Promotion International (HPI) conceptualize unions, unionization and working under collective agreements as promoting health. Of 2443 articles published in HPI since its inception, 87 or 3.6% make mention of unions, unionization, collective agreements or collective bargaining, with most saying little about their promoting health. Instead, 20 make cursory references to unions or merely see them as providing support and engagement opportunities for individuals. Forty-five depict unions or union members as involved in a health promotion programme or activity carried out by the authors or by government agencies. Only 33 articles explicitly mention unions, unionization or collective agreements as potentially health promoting, representing 1.3% of total HPI content since 1986. We conclude that the health promoting possibilities of unionization and working under collective agreements is a neglected area amongst HPI contributors. Reasons for this are explored and an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report on the importance of collective bargaining is drawn upon to identify areas for health promotion research and action.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".