Thriving in three Northwestern Ontario communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease-based models of health often fail to consider socio-economic models that perpetuate optimal health. The promotion of human thriving, rather than merely surviving, can be achieved by promoting optimal health indicators that facilitate overall wellbeing. Such interventions are those that promote a high quality of life, otherwise conceptualized as a “life worth living,” and can consist of life activities that exist outside of traditional health care intervention. Despite the continuous rise of health outcomes in Canada, it is likely that the cost associated with thriving may reduce the likelihood that optimal health will be achieved by many. Previous studies have generated the cost of thriving calculated for a single individual living in the Greater Toronto Area and have found that the cost of thriving is below the median annual income for this region. In the current study, this framework has been applied to three additional communities in Northwestern Ontario. Results indicated that when costs of thriving in Thunder Bay, Sioux Lookout, and a small remote community were compared, costs of thriving were highest in more rural and remote areas. Given the limited availability of regional data, it was not possible to generate specific total costs for all communities in this review. Overall, health promotion and wellbeing approaches can be diversified by using evidence-based, strength-based health interventions. Such approaches can be offered in conjunction with traditional public health initiatives, to better foster individual-level health (through disease reduction) and wellbeing (such as promoting hope, belonging, meaning, and purpose) within community.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".