Interrogating Healthy Community Discourse in Municipal Policies: Priorities of a Medium-Sized CMA in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
movement recommends action on the determinants of health and health equity. While economic and ecological circumstances have been studied with respect to health outcomes, research shows that the relationship between these broad determinants and population health is not always clear. Municipal governments, whose relative proximity to individuals means that they are optimally situated to address local health concerns, can demonstrate political will for healthy communities by developing health community policies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to interrogate how the idea of a 'healthy community' has been conceptualized by municipal governments in order to inform the future uptake of the concept. This study uses a post-structural policy analysis to examine government discourse on healthy communities in a medium-sized census metropolitan area (CMA) in Ontario, Canada. The findings highlight economic growth and ecological sustainability as priorities for fostering a healthy community. With emphasis on long-standing issues linking health outcomes to broader societal conditions, this study calls on municipal governments to explicitly consider the health impacts of healthy community strategies and adoption of a Health-in-All-Policies (HiAP) approach.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".