HEALTH PROMOTION, ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT, AND HEALTH EQUITY: A CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore the understandings and practices of empowerment from the perspective o f professionals working in a Canadian health promotion organization whose mandate is to reduce health inequities. Data were collected from two focus group interviews with eleven members of the organization as well as from nine annual reports. A critical discourse analysis approach was utilized to analyze the data. Analysis suggests that the participants have divergent conceptualizations of empowerment and these understandings emphasize behaviorist notions of empowerment. The organization’s practices of empowerment were also in line with behaviorist approaches to health promotion. The participants of this study gave little attention to power relation issues and this fact diverges from health promotion’s ultimate goal of changing the social, economic, and environmental status to decrease health inequities. This study sheds light on the necessity of professionals to continuously reflect on their discourses in order to advance their practices.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".