EPOCH Part 2 (appears in: Environmental Profile of a Community's Health (EPOCH): An Ecometric Assessment of Measures of the Community Environment Based on Individual Perception). Copyright: Creative Commons License.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health research has turned towards examining upstream, community-level determinants of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Objective measures of the environment, such as those derived from direct observation, and perception-based measures by residents have both been associated with health behaviours. However, current methods are generally limited to objective measures, often derived from administrative data, and few instruments have been evaluated for use in rural areas or in low-income countries. We evaluate the reliability of a quantitative tool designed to capture perceptions of community tobacco, nutrition, and social environments obtained from interviews with residents in communities in 5 countries. METHODOLOGY/ PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirteen measures of the community environment were developed from responses to questionnaire items from 2,360 individuals residing in 84 urban and rural communities in 5 countries (China, India, Brazil, Colombia, and Canada) in the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health (EPOCH) study. Reliability and other properties of the community-level measures were assessed using multilevel models. High reliability (>0.80) was demonstrated for all community-level measures at the mean number of survey respondents per community (n = 28 respondents). Questionnaire items included in each scale were found to represent a common latent factor at the community level in multilevel factor analysis models. CONCLUSIONS/ SIGNIFICANCE: Reliable measures which represent aspects of communities potentially related to cardiovascular disease (CVD)/risk factors can be obtained using feasible sample sizes. The EPOCH instrument is suitable for use in different settings to explore upstream determinants of CVD/risk factors.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".