Health as a resource for everyday life: advancing the conceptualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the conceptualization of health as a resource and the implications that such a definition has for public health programs and policies. First introduced in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, health is commonly defined by practitioners, policy makers, and scholars as a resource for everyday life. However, despite frequent references to health as a resource, little attention has been paid to the meaning of this one-line phrase. Thus, we draw on a multidisciplinary body of literature to examine key features of health that characterize it as a resource, as well as its similarities, differences, and associations with other resources. We argue that, as a resource, health is appropriately conceptualized as a type of capital that can be invested in by individuals and societal institutions to achieve positive health returns. Similar to human capital, health is embodied in individuals, and, as such, it is not a tradable resource like money. Health cannot be exchanged or sold for goods and services and it cannot be obtained directly in exchange for goods and services. Instead, as a type of capital, health is a stock of biopsychosocial resources that people can draw on to participate in society. Although health shares some characteristics with human capital, we contend that health is not a component of human capital, as some scholars indicate. Lastly, we maintain that there are important program and policy implications, both positive and negative, of adopting an economic definition of health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".