Promoção da saúde e qualidade de vida: concepções da Carta de Ottawa em produção científica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature review with the purpose to identify the concepts of health promotion and quality of life present on the Ottawa Charter, in national and international publications of the health field from 2000 to 2010. We identified 31 articles in the Medline, Lilacs, BDENF and BIREME data bases written by professionals from different areas of health knowledge, in which its readings and contexts were applied in reference to the conception of health promotion and quality of life according to the Ottawa Carter. The articles highlight the empowerment and social participation as relevant actions to gain quality and healthy lifestyles and longevity. Professional actions committed to a co-responsibility and general well-being emerge as the greatest value of the health promotion programs, reducing costs and promoting quality of life. The analyzed articles lead to the need to mobilize individuals, communities and society as key points for 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 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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.066 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".