Health literacy policies: National examples from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is recognised as an international leader in the evolving field of health literacy. Drawing from many disciplines, health literacy efforts in Canada in large measure have been anchored in health promotion and education perspectives as opposed to being driven by the medical system. The Canadian health literacy path has been informed by noteworthy international landmark policy documents, such as the Ottawa Charter for health promotion, and by international adult literacy surveys (Statistics Canada, 2007, 2013), while leaving its own trail of significant reports and resources. In Canada, health literacy is viewed as a determinant of health, public health issue and essential resource to promote and maintain good health across the life course. There are many pockets of innovative health literacy initiatives, activities and networks across the nation. Much of this work has been embedded in daily practice led by experts, local champions, universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and associations. Yet many efforts tend to be project-based without being absorbed into practice, reinforcing the need for ‘policy to underpin practice’ (Shohet and Renaud, 2006). While promising national-level policy statements have been proposed, none is currently endorsed by policy-makers at any level of government to advance action. In 2008, Canada’s Expert Panel on health literacy produced A vision for a health literate Canada report, with a vision statement that: ‘All people in Canada have the capacity, opportunities and support they need to obtain and use health information effectively, to act as informed partners in caring for themselves, their families and communities, and to manage interactions in a variety of settings that affect health and well-being’ (Rootman and Gordon-El-Bihbety, 2008, p 23).
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".