MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984051587 · doi:10.1080/09581596.2010.520692

Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens

2011· article· en· W1984051587 on OpenAlexaff
Nike Y Ayo

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Public Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeoliberalism (international relations)Health promotionIdeologyRationalitySociologyHealth policyPromotion (chess)PoliticsPolitical sciencePolitical economyHealth careLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neoliberal rationality is frequently invoked in critical analyses of health promotion, particularly those analyses stemming from a Foucaultian governmental perspective. Such references made to neoliberalism have been beneficial in highlighting the interconnections between health promotion policy and practice and the larger social, cultural and political systems of governing in which health discourses are embedded. However, beyond referential illustrations of neoliberal ideology, there has been little elaboration as to how specifically the logic of neoliberalism is deployed in such a way as to contribute to shaping contemporary health promotion policies and facilitating the modern-day health conscious movement. In this article, I will elaborate on this issue and add a level of depth to this discussion. I will specifically explore how neoliberal thought and practice is directly implicated in shaping the way health is promoted. This analysis contributes to the growing body of literature on critical perspectives of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.135
Scholarly communication0.0170.012
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.488
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.037 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations473
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Public HealthSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207