Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Participatory Modeling to Support Paradigm Shifts in Public Health: An Application to Obesity and Evidence-Based Policymaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia suggested that a paradigm shift from weight to well-being could address the unintended consequences of focusing on obesity and improve the outcomes of efforts to address the challenges facing both individuals and our healthcare system. In this paper, we jointly used artificial intelligence (AI) and participatory modeling to examine the possible consequences of this paradigm shift. Specifically, we created a conceptual map with 19 experts to understand how obesity and physical and mental well-being connect to each other and other factors. Three analyses were performed. First, we analyzed the factors that directly connect to obesity and well-being, both in terms of causes and consequences. Second, we created a reduced version of the map and examined the connections between categories of factors (e.g., food production, and physiology). Third, we explored the themes in the interviews when discussing either well-being or obesity. Our results show that obesity was viewed from a medical perspective as a problem, whereas well-being led to broad and diverse solution-oriented themes. In particular, we found that taking a well-being perspective can be more comprehensive without losing the relevance of the physiological aspects that an obesity-centric perspective focuses on.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".