MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W634868346 · doi:10.4135/9781452232829

Settings for Health Promotion: Linking Theory and Practice

2000· book· en· W634868346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Blake Poland, Lawrence Green, Irving Rootman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Health promotionPsychologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Settings Approach to Health Promotion - Lawrence W Green, Irving Rootman and Blake D Poland Home and Families as Health Promotion Settings - Hassan Soubh and Louise Potvin Commentary - Lawrence Fisher Commentary - Ilze Kalnins The School as a Setting for Health Promotion - Guy Parcel, Steven Kelder and Karen Basen-Enquist Commentary - Cheryl Perry Commentary - Peter McLaren, Zeus Leonardo, Xochitl Perez Promoting the Determinates of Good Health in the Workplace - Michael Polanyi et al Commentary - Robert Bertera Commentary - Joan Eakin The Health Care Institutions as Settings for Health Promotion - Joy Johnson Commentary - Jane Lethbridge Commentary - Patricia Mullen and L Kay Bartholomew Health Promotion in Clinical Practice - Vivek Goel and Warren McIsaac Commentary - David Butler-Jones Commentary - Jane Zapka Community as a Setting for Health Promotion - Marie Boutilier, Shelley Cleverly and Ronald Labonte Commentary - John Raeburn Commentary - Evelyn deLeeuw The State as a Setting - John Lavis and Terrence Sullivan Commentary - Marshal Kreuter Reflections on Settings for Health Promotion - Blake D Poland, Lawrence W Green and Irving Rootman

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.079
Scholarly communication0.0240.022
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.418 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations286
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207