Bibliographic record
Abstract
regarding research took a turn from traditional debates on public health research. Louise Potvin referred to it clearly: ‘The Ottawa Charter identifies values and principles that place the population’s emancipation and participation as equally important processes to research findings. We believe … that these principles and values are becoming the parameters for effectiveness of action.’ We cannot just concentrate on traditional approaches, based on the classical biomedical model, to organize health services and programmes. Jacqueline Descarpentries suggests in her article on public health education interventions that intervention is based on ‘the social and historical realities that have been determined by states’ traditions, and national, global, economic, political and cultural factors, to construct the social conditions for health education.’ A key point of the debate concerns the place of epidemiology in health promotion reflection and research. In this regard, Louise Potvin shed light on the discussion: ‘The methodological discourse is largely dominated by epidemiology. In the public health conceptual universe, health promotion is restrained to justifying its research procedures based on epidemiology’s criteria’, but epidemiology’s methodological paradigm ‘is hardly compatible with the emancipation principles and values of the Ottawa Charter.’ As a consequence, she says, there are two ways to ensure the rigour of health promotion evaluation studies: on the one hand, as part of the epidemiology paradigm, by driving analysis on the basis of a strict definition of the evaluator’s range of control; and on the other hand, by moving away from the paradigm and implementing disciplines that aim to establish processes of social transformation.
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 | 0.230 | 0.227 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.083 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.061 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".