The “Montreal message”: the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is still useful for today's public health practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
th , 2006, with the possi- bility to pursue the exchanges begun then on different issues. Over 1200 people, com- ing from Canada and about 12 other coun- tries, were at the symposium and tried to answer the question: Is the Ottawa Charter for health promotion still useful for today's public health practice? At the end of the day, after a final vote, the seemed clear: over 70% answered yes to the question. As an opener to the new sub- series, the aim of this paper is thus to explore a bit further the meaning of this message and, at the same time, to trigger additional thoughts on this subject in prepa- ration of the IUHPE's World Conference in Vancouver in June 2007 (http://iuhpecon- ference.org). Three other papers introduce the sub- series: one describing the sophisticated process that guided the planning and the realization of the Montreal symposium; one focusing on the different themes that emerged throughout the day; and, finally, another on the theatrical performances that took place during the day. In order to par- take even more in the preliminary work of IUHPE's Vancouver conference, a special call for papers has been made to the 1200 participants in the context of the sub-series, and the articles retained by a group of peer- reviewers gathered especially for the cir- cumstance will be placed online. The aim of the Symposium: bring the participants to reflect and to take position The Ottawa Charter Symposium was developed by a scientific committee of about twelve persons coming from a variety of jobs and perspectives (see JASP, 2006, for further details) under the leadership of M. O'Neill and S. Dupere, within the JASP's general rules regarding the organization of symposia. The day began with a general plenary dedi- cated to the past (from 1986 on), present and future of public health, followed by five sub- plenaries focusing on the Charter's five strate- gies. After lunch, the participants were split into 20 parallel workshops devoted to diverse forms of practice and were gathered again, in conclusion, for a final plenary. Adopting a peculiar format after a popular TV show in Quebec by the name of Right to speech (Droit de Parole), that plenary allowed a debate between the views of the participants, presented by the Mise au jeu theater troop (N. Roberge et P. Parent), and those of nine key witnesses, coming from a diversified set of academic and practice environments; the plenary ended by a final vote. Principally designed by two members of the scientific committee (S. Dupere and E. Pedneault), a sophisticated approach was implemented in order to supply Mise au jeu and the facilitator of the Droit de Parole (R. Perrault) with meaningful content. The par- ticipant's viewpoints were collected using such mechanisms as vox pop, a thorough and systematic note taking process in each of the activities as well as a mural and pictures. All these elements were synthesized by two key reporters, M. Forster and K. Perreault. A breakfast with authors of recent books on public health, over a hundred posters as well as an exhibit called Objet: pauvrete also nourished the reflections of the participants. The main issues that emerged during the day Among the issues raised using the tech- niques mentioned above, two seem to stand out.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».