Before the cradle and beyond the grave: a lifespan/settings‐based framework for health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop a unique framework which combines the concepts of settings and lifespan where they are applied to health promotion. BACKGROUND: The influential World Health Organisation's 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion supported certain settings being nominated as unique social systems for enabling specific health promotion activity. These initially included a whole raft of proposed settings ranging from the micro to macro; these at the time mainly being hospitals, communities, schools, workplaces, cities, villages, islands and the home and family. Several other settings have since also been added to the list - which now include health-promoting universities and health-promoting prisons. Most of the mentioned settings have in more recent times being acknowledged in the nursing literature. DESIGN: Discursive. METHOD: A critical examination and exploration of the existing health promotion literature related to both settings and lifespan. RESULTS: It is possible to combine the related, but hitherto unexplored, concepts of health promotion settings and lifespan. This has resulted in a useable framework to further assist practitioners with their health promotion work. CONCLUSION: What has not yet surfaced in both the nursing and the general health promotion literature is that most settings can be linked as a whole, not just by their geographical location and proximity to each other, but also to the fact that they tend to follow a linear direction that ranges across the total lifespan. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Viewing health promotion in the way that this framework proposes further assists in locating and clarifying the often confused and contested position of health promotion in nursing.
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 | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".