Bibliographic record
Abstract
The agenda for health promotion that has been established since 1986 (Ottawa Charter: providing safe or supportive environment; developing healthy public policy; developing personal skills, community action; reorienting the health service) is now firmly embedded in the framework of health promotion activities in more economically developed countries. The progress in developing it within less economically developed countries has shown some significant forward movement. The evidence for the effectiveness of the strategies of the Charter is mixed. In order to prove effective, the individual interventions need to act in conjunction with each other and with certain supporting actions. Strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of one strategy linked to building public policies for health. In contemporary societies, health tends to become fragmented into various sub-institutions dealing with particular aspects of health or health systems, while the capacity to assemble the various aspects of public policy that jointly determine health is under-developed. The epistemological model underpinning health promotion is based on systems theory. The reciprocity of the interactions of the different elements of the system or organisation is acknowledged as a driving force. All actors – all health professionals, patients, their families, the community and all other relevant social actors including policy makers – are part of the system and all have the power to change its functioning. A participative and collaborative attitude is essential to optimise a given system’s status.
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 | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".