Retrouver la complexité du réel dans les approches théoriques de promotion de la santé : transiter par l'identité du sujet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theoretical frameworks presently dominating health promotion practices mainly focus on the individual's psychosocial and cognitive components. When focusing on environments, these frameworks barely relate contextual elements to the individuals who give them a real existence. Because of the disjunction and reduction they create, the main theoretical readings only partially recognize the complexity of social life and therefore lose the Subject. Lacking theoretical reliance, these readings fail to meet the Ottawa Charter principles. Based on critical analysis of the main theoretical frameworks, we discuss the influence of disciplinary backgrounds on our modes of knowledge, tackling how epidemiological and behavioral thinking affect how we understand, conceive and problematize the objects in these fields. Based on this analysis, we illustrate how these epistemologies oversimplify social realities related to health. In order to encounter the lost subject of health promotion and thereby achieve Ottawa Charter's principles, we propose an innovative theoretical approach based on Schütz' socio-phenomenological thinking and Morin's complexity paradigm. Our theoretical proposal aims to recognize and reconcile significant aspects of individuals' meaningful life experiences, while integrating common sense principles. By transiting through the subject's identity, this theoretical proposal tends to unify all meaningful aspects that subtend social life at the subject's scale.
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".