Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is a leader in developing health promotion con-cepts of providing the prerequisites of health through health-promoting public policy. But Canada is clearly a laggard in implementing these concepts. In contrast, France is seen as a nation in which health promotion con-cepts have failed to gain much traction yet evidence exists that France does far better than Canada in providing these health prerequisites. Such findings suggest that it is the political economy—or form of the welfare state—of a nation rather than its explicit commitments to health pro-motion concepts—that shape provision of the prerequi-sites of health. Part 1 of this article examines how health promotion rhetoric specifically concerned with provision of the prerequisites of health differs among nations identified as being either liberal, social democratic, con-servative or Latin welfare states. Governing authorities of nations that are liberal or social democratic welfare states are more likely to make explicit rhetorical commitments to provision of the prerequisites of health, the conservative and Latin states less so. Part 2 of this article provides evi-dence however, that despite their rhetorical commitments to provision of the prerequisites of health, liberal welfare state nations fall well behind not only the social democrat-ic nations, but also the conservative welfare states in implementing public policies that provide the prerequisites of health. The Latin welfare states express little commit-ment to provision of the prerequisites of health and rather limited public policy activity towards meeting this aim. Key words: government programmes; health policy; public health
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.455 | 0.211 |
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".