Healthy cities approach as a new paradigm of public health policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he healthy cities approach emphasizes the role of the leadership of local governments in promoting the health of the population in city settings.The concept emerged from public health strategies declared in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, and reflects the characteristics of the third public health revolution.The Korean healthy cities movement, characterized by voluntary participation of local governments in the Alliance for Healthy Cities, has grown rapidly in recent years.A strong push of the healthy cities movement by a local government without a profound commitment to the vision may hinder the effective and sustainable development of the movement.By reviewing the historical background and significance of the healthy cities movement and its underlying concepts, and illustrating the main strategies and goals of the movement, that is, the development of partnerships, community participation and empowerment, and working in networks for stimulating change, this article argues that the healthy cities movement is a potent vehicle for implementing the new paradigm of public health introduced to local governments.We also argue that the Korean healthy cities movement needs more active participants and more support of the central government and other related stakeholders.
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 | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".