Health and well-being literacy initiatives focusing on immigrant communities: an environmental scan protocol to identify "what works and what does not"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Most of the major cities in the developed western countries are characterized by an increasing multiculturalism brought by the immigrant population. The immigrant communities face challenges in the new environment with their health and wellness related unmet needs. It is imperative to find sustainable ways to empower these diverse communities to champion their health and wellness. Community-based health and wellness literacy initiatives (CBHWLI) focusing on immigrant communities can be an important step towards citizen empowerment in this regard. The aim of the present environmental scan is to identify the key factors that might impact a CBHWLI in immigrant communities in Canada in order to facilitate the process in practice and identify the competencies and training required for its implementation. Methods This study will gather information from existing literature and online sources as well as will capture expert and lay perspectives on the factors that can impact the effectiveness and sustainability of CBHWLIs through conducting a comprehensive environmental scan: (i) a systematic scoping review of published literature and grey literature, (ii) a comprehensive Internet search, (iii) key informant interviews, and (iv) community consultation. Specific methodological and analytical frameworks will guide each step. Ethics and dissemination This study is the first step in establishing a practical base for developing CBHWLI implementation research. Once the initial findings have been generated, the second step will involve inviting experts to provide their input. We first plan to disseminate the results of our scoping review and Internet scan through meetings with key stakeholders, to be followed by journal publications and conference or workshop presentations. Ethical approval is not required for the scoping review or Internet scan; however, approval to conduct interviews with key informants and community consultations in the second stage of the study will be sought from the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".