Some bitter-sweet reflections on the Ottawa Charter commemoration cake: a personal discourse from an Ottawa rocker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Charter both gave health promotion a solid framework and health promoters an identity. Yet, health promotion has far from reached its potential in being internalized in public health politics. Advocacy for health is one of the core missions for health promotion and the 25-year celebration of the Ottawa Charter offers a free ride, instead of being a missed opportunity. WHO has not met the expectations in taking advantage of the momentum and outcomes from the long series of global health promotion conferences. The series represents a lifeline for health promotion. Concepts like healthy public policy, supportive environments, social determinants, health and human rights, whole of government, globalization and others have been elaborated and framed in a health promoting context. The downside is that the footprints have not been bold, in particular not internationally. An upside is the development of research and science, underscored by a rapid development of scientific journals, textbooks, academic institutions and posts. A question arising is whether practise and policy making are left behind, since implementation on a grand scale still is lacking? Further and future efforts must be devoted to explore the processes and art of policy making. There is a need for more narratives and more health promoters involving themselves in policy making and politics. Health promotion is as relevant for the twenty-first century as ever. The challenges and opportunities are evident; the increasing global burden of non-communicable diseases, ageing populations, harmful use of alcohol, social determinants and fair societies improved governance and more. Health promotion can add value and WHO can step up its engagement.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.068 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".