MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414486155 · doi:10.1177/08404704251362375

A vision for the role of governments in supporting the public's health: Learning from the past and expanding our imaginations for the future

2025· article· en· W4414486155 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay McLaren

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Upstream (networking)PoliticsPublic healthPublic policyHealth careHealth policyCommunity engagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governments in Canada and elsewhere play a very significant role in shaping the health of populations, but the main ways in which they do so are largely hidden because they lie outside of the health sector and are thus under-leveraged. Neoliberal economic and social policy has eroded upstream determinants of health, with profound consequences for health equity. The current polycrisis-a predictable outcome of neoliberalism-provides an opportunity to re-imagine a role for governments in supporting the public's health. Anchored in a broad version of public health, I consider three levels where we, as a community of health professionals, could start to envision such a version of government, focusing primarily on federal government: (1) public spending; (2) overall orientation of government vis-à-vis the well-being of the population; and (3) the broader political economic paradigm and its dynamics of power. Collectively, these offer opportunity to learn from our past while expanding our imaginations for the future. Such a vision will require the support, and the humility, of healthcare leaders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.060
Scholarly communication0.0350.032
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0170.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207