Gesundheitsziele zur Gesundheitsförderung im Spannungsfeld von individueller Freiheit, staatlichem Paternalismus und Gemeinwohl
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Germany, a growing number of health targets has been adopted in the last years by various actors. While health targets are a useful instrument of governance, the priority setting and a respective redistribution of resources have to be legitimised in the cause of their advantages and disadvantages for population groups. The involved sciences including ethics can support decision-making, but not fully justify decisions. Therefore, decisions on health targets must be made in a transparent and participative process. In spite of a growing number of health targets, the lack of targets in health policies is to be criticised. Within the health targets, those measures assigned to curative medicine and prevention have a greater weight than health promotion. Health promotion should follow the WHO Ottawa-Charter and be embedded in the concept of "capabilities". Under these conditions, a stronger consideration of health promotion in the health target process would be desirable. However, the present actor constellations within health target processes make such a direction improbable. The struggle around capabilities and individual freedom occurs through, in and about institutions of the civil society as well as political and legal institutions. To restrict the discussion about public health and health promotions to an juxtaposition of individual freedom and state paternalism minimises societal and social restrictions of individual freedom as well as the possibility of a safeguard and enlargement of individual freedoms through political and legal institutions.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.021 |
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 it