Six assertions about the salutogenic approach and health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The concept of health is a continuously changing issue, with ever richer and more comprehensive meanings and definitions. In recent decades, we have witnessed a strong evolution of the scientific paradigms and cultural frameworks that influence health patterns. In particular, in 1986 the Charter of Ottawa gave further dimensions to the concept of health and pushed the concept of health promotion to the forefront. In this context, the salutogenic approach, proposed by A. Antonovsky, represents a theoretical contribution which stimulates discussion about meanings and implications. Aim and Methods: The present paper aims to provide a conceptual framework for the interpretation of health patterns and to broaden the theoretical interpretation of the salutogenic approach. In order to do this, a literature review was carried out, taking into account several disciplines and perspectives, including sociology and anthropology. The data collection for this paper was undertaken through two parallel literature reviews and systematisation of the information gathered. Results: The following health patterns were identified: the disease treatment pattern, the health care pattern, the disease prevention pattern and the health promotion pattern. These approaches allow one to better analyse and understand the added values of the salutogenic approach. Conclusions: The present discussion contributes to the debate surrounding the salutogenesis theory and its applicability to the healthcare setting by proposing six assertions about the salutogenic approach to health promotion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".