Social prescribing in Canada: health promotion in action, 50 years after the Lalonde report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lalonde report, published in 1974 by the Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare, broke ground for public health in Canada by acknowledging that the determinants of health are much broader than health care services. Fifty years later, this special issue of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada charts a clear path towards addressing upstream determinants of health through an emerging intervention called "social prescribing." Social prescribing connects patients with community resources tailored to their individual priorities, fostering a paradigm shift from a deficitbased to a strengths-based approach in health promotion. Part 1 of this issue covers the rapid growth and diverse applications of social prescribing across Canada, with targeted initiatives for various populations and interventions ranging from nature and arts to physical activity and social connectivity. Contributions from a wide range of partners, including researchers, health professionals and community members, explore the adaptability of social prescribing for different groups, underscore the role of community and lived experiences in research, and call for more studies on social prescribing's effectiveness and outcomes. Highlighted case studies demonstrate tangible benefits in health equity and access to social services. This issue not only reflects the current scope and impact of social prescribing in Canada but also sets the stage for its future development and integration into broader health practices.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".