Securing 'supportive environments' for health in the face of ecosystem collapse: meeting the triple threat with a sociology of creative transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we reflect on and explore what remains to be done to make the concept of supportive environments--one of the Ottawa Charter's five core action areas--a reality in the context of growing uncertainty about the future and accelerated pace of change. We pay particular attention to the physical environment, while underscoring the inextricable links between physical and social environments, and particularly the need to link social and environmental justice. The paper begins with a brief orientation to three emerging threats to health equity, namely ecological degradation, climate change, and peak oil, and their connection to economic instability, food security, energy security and other key determinants of health. We then present three contrasting perspectives on the nature of social change and how change is catalyzed, arguing for an examination of the conditions under which cultural change on the scale required to realize the vision of 'supportive environments for all' might be catalyzed, and the contribution that health promotion as a field could play in this process. Drawing on sociological theory, and specifically practice theory and the work of Pierre Bourdieu, we advocate rethinking education for social change by attending more adequately to the social conditions of transformative learning and cultural change. We conclude with an explication of three key implications for health promotion practice: a more explicit alignment with those seeking to curtail environmental destruction and promote environmental justice, strengthening engagement with local or settings-focused 'communities of practice' (such as the Transition Town movement), and finding new ways to creatively 'engage emergence', a significant departure from the current dominant focus on 'risk management'.
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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.147 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".