Workplace health promotion in the context of public health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern societies, work is the source of most individual, corporate and community wealth. The level ofeach society’s health is therefore particularly vulnerable to disruption caused by employee illness. Todayhealthy workplaces are one of the most important determinants of health. However, public health has tendedto completely ignore health in the workplace and occupational medicine has tended to ignore it in part. Thisarticle refers to the Italian and European context and, through a review of international recommendations,research and direct field experiences, presents workplace health promotion as an important tool in the fieldof public health.Through the years, several initiatives have been tested. One of the platforms that has demonstrated to becost effective is based on the principles included in the Ottawa Charter which, when applied to the workplace,define workplace health promotion. In the last twelve years, the European Commission has recognized theworkplace as a key determinant of health and has outlined a methodology of workplace health promotion asdefined in the Luxemburg Declaration. The basis of this methodology is planning. Without correct strategyand policy development it will not be possible to create a sustainable society. The enforcement of Lisbontreaty seems to be a substantial step forward for Europe.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".