Examination and Speculation Regarding Policy and Strategies for Health Promotion in the Local Community in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the idea of the “health promotion” was advocated by the Ottawa charter in 1986, the purpose of health care was only seen as the improvement of an individual's health. Up to that time, social environmental factors and the processes involved in carrying out health projects and physical fitness promotion — its practice, evaluation, public participation and so on — had not been appreciated. In keeping with the basic concept of health promotion, and with the effort of individuals, it is essential to establish public policy for the support of health care. This implies that specialist groups, including administration, must respond to the demands of health care and physical fitness promotion. Furthermore, we can say that health care and physical fitness promotion must be carried out with regard for social policy. However, the ideals of health promotion have not been achieved so far. We examined the actual status of Health Japan 21 health promotion in two surveys, a basic survey in October 2003 and the main examination in October 2004. All local governments were examined in order to propose a community system for promoting life function and social participation for the elderly. We analyzed and assessed the questionnaire including 1) the planning and practice of Health Japan 21 strategies (a concrete assessment of the status of each of the nine items and of the details of each sub-item of plans in administrative divisions, government-designated major cities, special districts, and cities, towns, and villages); 2) the level of recognition of public participation in and opinion of projects, during execution and evaluation, and the level of cooperation with civilian organizations; 3) ways of spreading awareness of projects; 4) project evaluations (intermediate evaluation); and 5) the importance of and prospects for the future of health care Health Japan 21 projects. It is thought that research into these factors will become a reference point for an intermediate evaluation of Health Japan 21, and will help solve various problems facing health improvement in our country.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".