MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098217904

PEER REVIEWED Abstract Background

2007· article· en· W7098217904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic healthContext (archaeology)Health policyHealth promotionChronic diseasePeer reviewResource (disambiguation)Intervention (counseling)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

as an 18-year undertaking to address the epidemic of cardiovascular disease in Canada. There is growing recognition in Canada of the need for an integrated approach to prevention that addresses common risks for many chronic diseases. Context Research and intervention activities of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative have shifted toward chronic disease prevention and health promotion. This study explores the contributions of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative to document how single-disease strategies can evolve into integrated chronic disease prevention efforts. Methods Key informant interviews were conducted with project researchers and health system stakeholders from seven Canadian Heart Health Initiative provincial projects. A review of provincial health policy documents was also performed. Consequences Findings indicate that the Canadian Heart Health Initiative projects contributed to public health capacity development, including coalition and partnership building, and development of health knowledge and resource infrastructure. The Canadian Heart Health Initiative projects helped put chronic disease prevention issues onto local and provincial health agendas and provided community-based models to help develop public health policies.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2750.115

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→CategoryInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)→French-language works237,207→