Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) produced the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (HPH) back in 1986. Then expressed the Budapest Declaration of Health Promoting Hospitals and after determined standards for reorienting hospitals towards health promotion So, this study evaluated Iranian hospitals based on WHO-HPH standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a descriptive - analytical survey in selected hospitals of Iran (38 hospitals from 5 provinces). Method of data collecting was through review of documentation related to each of the standards. WHOs self-assessment tool for health promotion was used. RESULT: Overall the mean score of health promotion standard in the state hospital was 54.1 ± 15.1 that means the private hospitals have higher score. In general, patient information and intervention standard had the highest score (70. 8 ± 8. 1) both in private and government hospitals and the patient assessment standard had the lowest score (44. 2 ± 20.1). CONCLUSION: [corrected] Hospitals must design a specific system for improving and evaluating health promotion in order to encourage policy-makers and health service administrators to invest resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".