Reclaiming the social in community movements: perspectives from the USA and Brazil/South America: 25 years after Ottawa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Ottawa Charter 25 years ago, community participation has been adopted worldwide by nation states and communities as a core health promotion strategy. Rising inequities since that time, however, have been largely unchecked in the Americas and globally, and have presented us with an acutely paradoxical time for community participation and action. On the one hand, transnational globalized markets and accompanying economic and environmental devastation have challenged the effectiveness of community action to create health. On the other hand, hopeful signs of local through national and international activism and of new mechanisms for community engagement continue to surface as meaningful and effective democratic acts. This article presents a dialogue on these issues between colleagues in the United States and Brazil, and considers the broader applicability to Latin America and worldwide. We begin by discussing how community participation and community organizing grew out of our respective histories. We consider the catalytic role of the Ottawa Charter in spurring a reorientation of health promotion and the genesis of healthy city and community initiatives, as well as other current community organizing strategies and the growth of participatory research/CBPR. We unpack the potential for co-optation of both community and social participation and end with recommendations for what we can do to maintain our integrity of belief in democratic social participation to promote improved health and health equity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".