Theory & Practice Pages 15–31 Dissemination of heart health promotion in the Ontario Public Health System: 1989–1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an analysis of the dissemination of community-based heart health promotion strategies. The research draws on diffusion and socio-ecological theories to study the first 10 years of heart health promotion in the public health system in Ontario, Canada. Using case description and interpretive analysis, the study describes developments in five stages of dissemination, and examines the interplay of factors operating in the internal organizational setting and the external environment in order to explain these developments. Findings demon-strate that dissemination of health promotion is a long-term, iterative process involving multiple stages. Dissemination is influenced by a complex interplay of factors operating within the public health system (especially traditional public health practice and champions) and factors in the environment in which the public health system operates (especially research, practice information and health policies). Implications are that policy makers should take a long-term view of dissemination, identify intermediate and long-term goals consistent with dissemination stages, and capitalize on internal and external forces supporting dissemination goals. Similar case-study research in other public health systems and time periods, and in more advanced
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".