The “Montreal message”: the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is still useful for today's public health practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it